Hello and welcome to my YES Pick Your Line Review.
In this review I will take a look at the Pick Your Line as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Pick Your Line a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and also see how it compares with other Freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: YES Pick Your Line 2019
Price: $599 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10 on YES’s flex scale)
Flex Feel: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating Score: 91.8/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 32 Men’s Freeride snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Pick Your Line’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Pick Your Line’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Freeride |
Price: | $599 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Camber | 1-4-2 (rocker-camber-rocker) |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | 10mm (0.4") |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
Length (cm) | 156 | 159 | 160W | 162 | 165 |
Waist Width (mm) | 250 | 253 | 260 | 255 | 258 |
Rec Rider Weight (lb) | 130-170 | 145-185 | 150-190 | 155-195 | 170-210 |
Rec Rider Weight (kg) | 59-77 | 66-84 | 68-86 | 70-88 | 77-95 |
Who is the Pick Your Line Most Suited To?
This board is for anyone who wants to adventure and explore the backcountry – and rip it up on the groomers when the powder’s not around.
For anyone who needs a board that is fast, stable at speed, a great carver and performs brilliantly in powder, but is also agile and quick edge-to-edge – the Pick Your Line is a great choice.
Definitely not for the park and not for the beginner or intermediate rider.
The Pick Your Line in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Pick Your Line is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Pick Your Line 2019, 159cm, 253mm waist width
Date: March 14, 2018
Conditions: Raining at bottom snowing from half way up to top . Good snow up top. Visibility actually OK. A good 4-5cm fresh up top. Some powder to play in.
Bindings angles: +18/-6
Stance width: 570mm (22.4”)
Stance Setback: 10mm (0.4″)
Width at Inserts: 260mm (10.2″) at the back insert and 263mm (10.4″) at the front insert
Weight: 2900grams (6lb 6oz)
Weight per cm: 18.24grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.21grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of 24 boards that I weighed. So pretty much bang on the average of the boards I weighed.
Powder
Even though the setback on the PYL is only 10mm, it still has great float in powder.
And that’s not a big surprise, given that, whilst it’s only setback 10mm on the effective edge, the nose is considerably longer than the tail. So where you sit on the board is a good bit further back, when in powder. Set up on the reference stance I had 54cm to the nose from my front binding and 48mm to the tail from my back binding.
That plus a reasonable amount of taper and more rocker in the nose than the tail, all help this board to float well in the deep stuff.
Carving
The Pick Your Line is a fun, fast, aggressive board to wield. You can lay down big carves on it, but at the same time you can actually slow it up a bit and it’s surprisingly agile and quick edge-to-edge.
And that maneuverability made this board super fun in trees – something that not all freeride boards are.
It’s also got great edge-hold in hard/icy patches. I didn’t have any of those for the 2019 model, but I did when I rode the 2017 model.
This is one of one of the most fun boards I’ve ridden for turning and carving on – it’s on of those boards that can just instantly make me a better carver. Just gave me heaps of confidence to lay into carves.
Learn more about the Pick Your Line in the Video Below
Speed
This board just feels so good at speed. It bombs!
Feels really stable at speed and felt so comfortable really opening out, even on chopped up snow. Really good and confidence inspiring on steeps too.
Uneven Terrain
Surprisingly good in uneven terrain. I don’t usually like stiffer boards in messy snow but this board just creamed it. Felt confident to bomb and carve even in messy, chopped up snow and felt good through undulating terrain.
Jumps
At risk of over using the term “surprisingly good”, this board jumps really well for a freeride board. Again, I’m don’t often love jumping with freeride boards, but the PYL is better than most. It’s stable on approach and landings, like most freeride boards, but what I liked more was that it had the maneuverability to find trickier side-hits that I would often skip with other freeride/stiffer boards.
Not great for spins though and especially not if you’re wanting to land or take off switch.
And it’s got good pop, but you do need to put in a bit of effort to extract that pop. When you do, it is there.
Switch
Switch is doable on this board, but not natural. I’ve ridden worse though – and the fact that it’s only setback 10mm on the effective edge helps for riding switch on the groomers. Worse for riding switch in pow though.
Changes from the 2018 Model
Apart from the graphic, the 2019 model is the exactly the same as the 2018 model, as far as I can tell.
Changes from the 2017 Model
The 2018 model is mildly stiffer than the 2017 model but subtly so – this was already a quite stiff board. The reference stance has also been narrowed – as it has on a lot of YES boards.
Changes from the 2016 Model
The 2016 model changed quite a bit from the 2015 model and the 2017 model has also had some tweaks. The 2015 model was actually quite decent at riding switch and was a little less directional.
But the 2016 changed to be a more pure freeride deck and brought in that Tapered Underbite tech. I personally think it was an improvement.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
FACTOR | rating (OUT OF 5) | contribution to final score |
|---|---|---|
Carving | 4.5 | 27/30 |
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 |
Overall the PYL is one of those boards that just has that X-Factor. It has that elusive balance between being hard charging, aggressive but at the same time agile and maneuverable even at relatively slow speeds.
It can play in powder & hard pack with equal aplomb and for this kind of board, is great in the trees, and even good for jumps and side hits.
Riding this board, it just made me feel like a better rider and gave me the confidence to really open out and charge the mountain.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
Check out the links below for more info on the Pick Your Line, where to buy or if you are researching prices or available sizes.
>>YES Pick Your Line at evo.com
>>YES Pick Your Line at backcountry.com
If your keen to check out some other Freeride options or to see how the Pick Your Line compares to other freeride decks check out the link below.
Hello and welcome to my YES Pick Your Line Review.
Ralph says
November 10, 2016 at 5:39 amHey Nate,
Appreciate you taking your time to review the PYL. Sounds like an excellent board.
I will be heading to Japan at the end of the year for a boarding trip and was thinking about picking one of these boards up. The question I have is I’m about 5″9 and 75kg / 165lbs and have been told by a few people to either go with the 156 or 159 – which one to go with? What benefits does going with one as opposed to the other?
Also, I noticed that you stated that the PYL wouldn’t really be suitable for an intermediate and I would consider myself in the middle of that skill level. Is there a particular reason why you wouldn’t recommend it for someone like me?
Cheers in advance mate.
Nate says
November 10, 2016 at 8:25 pmHi Ralph
Thanks for your message. First of all, the reason I say not necessarily the best for an intermediate rider is that it’s quite a stiff aggressive board. Stiffer boards like this are less forgiving of errors and overall more difficult to ride than softer flexing boards. You get benefits out of that extra stiffness of course (better edge-hold, more responsive, more stable at speed etc) but it’s harder to tame it, if that makes sense. Once you can tame it you can really ride it.
Now, that’s not to say that it’s completely off the cards for an intermediate rider but it will be a steeper learning curve moving from something softer and less aggressive to this. Definitely not for a beginner – this would be a runaway train under a beginner’s feet!
The benefits of going for the longer length 159 is that it will be better at floating in powder and it will be faster and more stable at speed.
The benefit of going for the 156 is that it will be easier to ride and more maneuverable. Going for the shorter length would offset some of the difficulty level of this board – smaller boards are typically easier to ride.
I guess you have to weight up first whether or not you want to make that step up and then decide whether you want the speed and powder benefits of the longer length or the easier to ride shorter length.
Hope this helps with your decision
eze says
March 10, 2017 at 7:19 pmHi Nate. What do you know about the durability of this board? I heard a couple of people complaining about this
Nate says
March 11, 2017 at 9:26 amHi Eze
I can’t comment on the durability. I typically only ride a board for a day or less so I don’t get a chance to test durability unfortunately.
Anom says
March 16, 2017 at 11:32 amHi Eze,
I currently have mine in for a warranty replacement as I type this due to the heel side edge delaminating quite bad. This was my second season on the board. This could be a one-off situation though, as other than that the board has been absolutely amazing to ride and I’ll be using my warranty credit to get the exact same board (although the base seems to be on the softer side, it’s not too bad). That being said, although their warranty itself seems to be good, the warranty process has been painfully slow (Initially started the process on Feb 5, 2017). I’ve now been waiting over a month and still have yet to hear back on whether or not it’s going to be covered so I’ve gone all Feb and now half of March without a board to ride……. I’ve been tossed around between trying to start the warranty process myself as I’ve moved from the town I bought my board in, to being told I must go through the shop I bought the board from (they worked on this for me for about 3 weeks), to now being told I have to go back directly through the company to process my claim. I’ve tracked my shipping number and it’s showing my board was delivered back to them on March 10th. It’s now March 16th and I haven’t heard from them, when they assured me it would be handled ASAP.
I concur with everything in this review. I have been riding for over 20 years now and have ridden every major brand board over the years, and this is by far my favorite of them all.
Anom says
April 5, 2017 at 3:59 pm*UPDATE* – Yes. warrantied my board and I now have store credit, which I’m using to purchase the 2017/2018 PYL or possibly the Optimistic. Haven’t decided yet. But back to the original point, although the warranty process took over 1.5 months, the board was covered no questions asked and I’m definitely purchasing another Yes.
Cheers,
Nate says
April 5, 2017 at 4:43 pmThanks for the update Anom. Good to know that they honor their warranties.
Shane says
September 9, 2017 at 2:06 amHey Nate,
I’m a fan of the way you do your reviews, very analytical and well presented. Website is well organized and easy to navigate as well.
I an an experienced rider of 15+ years, I am riding the park less and less but still go through and do the odd handrail and jump. I am more focusing on aggressive big mountain riding, big drops(20ft plus), natural features,tight trees, deep snow etc… I dont cruise switch but I ride out of landings and take offs switch sometimes but then revert back. I am 5’9″ 155lbs size 9.5-10 boot coming from a rome agent 154 which was great for crushing the resort and the odd park lap but left me wanting extra float and stiffness in the bigger faster deeper stuff. the Yes PYL and Burton FA are at the top of my list. Is the Yes PYL 156 going to be fine in tight trees even with the stiff flex? Do you think the flight attendant would be better suited for this? how do these boards handle the end of day bumpy resort snow that’s been shredded all day?
Also I know they are not designed for the park but they should handle a basic board slide and jump, right? any chance of doing some small presses? how do you think the Capita BSOD compares to these two?
Thanks,
Shane
Nate says
September 9, 2017 at 9:45 amHi Shane
Thanks for your message.
These boards (PYL/FA/BSOD) are definitely going to crush it for your big mountain riding – that’s what their made for mostly. As an experienced rider you’ll be able to get away with them in the park – but their not going to be ideal for it.
If you’re focus is heavily in favor of big mountain and it’s only very seldom that you’d be jumping/pressing, then these are the kinds of boards that are probably going to be your best bet. But you could also consider something like the Jones Explorer – which is a bit softer flexing and will be a little better for presses/jumps and for taking off/landing switch – but also will give you more in terms of powder than the Agent. The Capita Mercury would be another option for this.
Certainly any of these are going to be an improvement over the Agent in powder for sure.
The 156 PYL probably has a similar effective edge as the 154 Agent – so I think that size will be absolutely fine – just the way it’s designed with the long nose – means that the total length of 156 has a lot of nose in it, that’s not going to be in contact with the snow unless you really need it in deep powder.
So yeah, 156 PYL would be a good fit for you, IMO. You could even go longer if you wanted to – but since you’re wanting something that can also tackle tight trees, I think 156 would work well.
Typically I don’t find freeride boards that great in bumpy resort snow but the 3 that you’ve mentioned aren’t as bad as others – so I think they’d handle this fine. Certainly just as well as the Agent, I would say.
So, I think the decision really comes down to how much you want performance for switch, jumps and jibs (though to be honest I found the PYL and the BSOD fine for jumps for straight air). If you didn’t want to sacrifice too much there, then something like the Explorer or Mercury or even an all-mountain board might be the way to go – but you’d definitely be capable for that kind of thing on the freeride boards, I would say. The other thing is that the Agent isn’t a great jibbing board anyway, so you wouldn’t loose too much there. If you’re fine with jibbing on the Agent, you’d loose a little on the freeride decks but not that much.
Out of the Freeride options, the BSOD is probably the best in terms of switch – and possibly the most versatile. It’s a little softer flexing than most freeride boards too – a bit stiffer than the Agent but not as much as the PYL. Similar flex to the Flight Attendant – maybe even a hair softer.
Sorry for the brain dump! Kind of how my minds works.
In terms of sizing, I would say 156cm for PYL, BSOD and Flight Attendant. 156 for Explorer and a toss up between 155 and 157 for Mercury.
It’s a tough choice because I think any one of these would do the job.
The other thing to consider would be if you encounter a lot of hard/icy snow – if so, then I’d say the PYL and Explorer are your better boards in those harder conditions.
Either way, these boards will definitely give you a significant boost in terms of powder and a definite improvement for riding steeps and for speed. Whatever you go with you’ll loose a little in terms of switch – but if you’re only taking off/landing it shouldn’t matter too much.
Hope this gives you more info for your decision – and wasn’t too all over the place!
Shane says
September 9, 2017 at 12:24 pmPerfect, that’s exactly the info I was looking for. I think I’m going to see which of the 3 I can find for the best deal at the turkey sale this year. I’ll check out the Capita merc as well but I think the big mountain focus is what I’ll be after but nice to know a rogue park lap wont be an issue. I don’t get a lot of ice or hard pack but those days do happen. That underbite technology sounds promising. the Capita kazu kokubo looks pretty interesting too. So many options, hard to pick without a demo! Thanks again for the info, makes these blind decisions a whole lot easier!
Cheers,
Shane
Nate says
September 10, 2017 at 3:08 pmYou’re very welcome Shane. Hope you have an awesome season!
David says
September 25, 2017 at 7:33 pmNate – I’m looking at a 2018 pyl – trying to decide if 162 will be too much board. I’m on a 157 t rice pro at the moment and am 5’10” / 165lbs / 10. Would use this for powder / backcountry / trees in Tahoe and Jackson hole.
Thanks!
Nate says
September 26, 2017 at 1:22 pmHi David
Thanks for your message.
I think you could get on the 162. The PYL has a shorter effective edge compared to its length than a lot of boards because of the amount of rocker in the nose and the length of the nose. The PYL 162 has an effective edge of 1205mm compared with your 157 T Rice Pro’s effective edge of 1210mm – so you’d actually be dropping some effective edge. I’ve always felt that the T Rice Pro rides quite long too.
That said, the 159 is also an option. Especially if you ride a lot in the trees. Personally I like something a little shorter through the trees – but then I like more length for big mountain and deep powder – so it’s often a trade off. If you spend more time in trees than open terrain, then the 159cm might suit you better, if you spend more time in open terrain, then go 162cm.
Hope this helps
Chris says
October 1, 2017 at 2:19 amHi Nate,
I’ve been researching a lot the past week and keep coming back to your site, well done!
I’m currently on the market for a new freeride board. I’m an experience rider with 12+ years of snowboarding experience and 20+ years of skiing. My own specs are a weight of 73 kg and a height of 187 cm with boot size 42. The current boards I own are a lib tech skate banana BTX 159 (2015) and a Flow Infinite 159 (2011/2012).
I’m looking for a freeride board to charge the mountain on powder days, but can carve really well on groomer days and hold an edge on hard packed icy stuff. I’m not a fan of riding between the trees, but do love to go offpiste to open terrain to set the first lines and to find some natural jumps.
I’m doubting heavily between the YES pick your line and the Rossignol XV. No matter how much research i do, i get pulled from one board back to the other. The other thing i’m not sure about is what size I should go with. 159 (PYL/XV) or 162 (PYL) or 163 (XV). What are your thoughts on my dillema? Can you tell me which one is your favorite board between the two and what sets them appart?
I hope that you can provide me with some insight to make the best choice.
Keep on riding and writing!
Chris says
October 1, 2017 at 6:28 amHi Nate,
I have been researching a lot the past week and keep returning to your site, great job! I tried to post earlier from my tablet but my comment did not show, so this might become a double post if there is some delay on posting.
Currently I’m on the market for a freeride board that charges through the pow, carves like a beast on the groomers and has no trouble to hold an edge on icy or hard packed snow.
I have 12+ years of experience snowboarding and 20+ years with skiing. My own specs are 73 kg of weight and 187 cm of height with boot size 42. I currently own a Lib Tech Skate Banana BTX 159 (2014/2015) and a Flow Infinite 159 (2011/2012). My buddy rides a Salomon burner (162) and we switch boards a lot as well.
I’m doubting heavily between the Yes Pick Your Line and the Rossignol XV, the more I research the more I jump back from one board to the other. Both boards seem to perform similar but use different technologies to reach their performance. I’m used to the magnatraction – as my skate banana has this as well – and I know this will help to keep that edge on icy conditions. I have no experience with the gradual tapered technology of the PYL, but based on what I have read so far this seems to do a tremendous job on hard packed ice as well. Their performance on both powder and carving seem similar as well, although again using some different technologies. Both have their own solutions to keep the board afloat and to charge through the bumpy stuff and seem to perform great at it. Which is your favorite board of the two and what sets them apart?
The next thing that is one my mind is the size, should I stick to 159 size for a freeride board or jump to 162 (PYL) or 163 (XV)? I’m not a fan of riding through the trees, but I do love to go off-piste or to the back country to set the first lines in fresh powder and to find some nice natural jumps. However my weight seems to be nicely in the middle for the 159 spec for both boards, but then again I read often that I should size up for a freeride board. What would you advice?
I hope you can provide some insight that will make this choice a bit easier.
Keep on riding and writing, I love to read this stuff!
Nate says
October 2, 2017 at 10:51 amHi Chris
Thanks for your message. I did receive your other message, but I have been busy all weekend in the process of moving apartments (such a pain!) so I haven’t got around to moderating until now.
Personally, I preferred the PYL – but both are great freeride boards and if you are used to magne-traction, then that might lean you slightly towards the Rossi. But I think whichever you pick would suit you well (not helpful I know!).
I’d say that the PYL is a little quicker edge-to-edge and I did like that about it – but if you’re not going into the trees, it’s probably not a big difference. But I did find the PYL a little better for jumps – which again was part of the reason I slightly preferred it and that sound likes it’s a factor for you too.
In terms of sizing, that’s a tough one too. 159cm does seem like the right fit for your specs for both boards. However, it is nice to add length for freeriding – and since you already have 159s, it would give you something different in your quiver. That said, if you went 159, it would certainly be a size you would be used to.
Going 159 would mean quicker turns – due to both the shorter length and narrower width – but one of the big advantages for this is in trees.
Going longer would mean better float in powder and better for carving, especially long arcing carves in open terrain. So for you, I think I’d be leaning towards longer, just based on your riding preference descriptions.
I think you’ve narrowed it down really well and can’t really make a bad choice at this point, but hopefully this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Chris says
October 2, 2017 at 11:40 amThanks for taking the time to write back when you are currently moving appartments Nate! It is indeed a pain to move places. Hope you found a great spot!
Your advice to add something new to my quiver is spot on!
I now lean towards the PYL 162, i’ll give it a shot as it is something new both in terms of size and as well regarding the tapered underbite. The quicker edge to edge might help me to get adjusted to the bigger board size. The better performance on the jumps is a nice bonus and pushes me over the edge 😉
Great advice Nate!
Nate says
October 3, 2017 at 6:56 pmYou’re very welcome Chris. Hope you love the PYL as much as I did! Have an awesome season
Chris says
September 13, 2018 at 8:18 amHi Nate,
It’s been almost a year since I bought the PYL 162 together with some Ride el jefe bindings and just wanted to let you know i had an awesome year on this deck. Thanks for the great advice!
The board performs great in powder, slush, piste and even on ice. It stays really stable, even on high speeds over 90 km/h. Float in powder is just effortless and didn’t give me any increased leg burn. Edge hold is like advertised, just pick your line and carve down the mountain.
This board is fast, really insanely fast… it even performs better at high speed! I constantly was looking for that perfect slope to blast down the mountain in a couple of large carves.
The hardest part for me was to get this board to perform quickly edge-to-edge with short slalom turns, I really had to up my technique to get it do that. The board can be really fast edge-to-edge, but it needs all muscles working together in tandem towards that goal, but once i got that feeling down in muscle memory the edge-to-edge was pretty quick.
The only downside i found is that the sintered base eats wax, I had to wax it every 2 to 3 days.
Overall this board was exactly what i was looking for and it helps me to improve my riding to the next level. I love this board. Yet, i wouldn’t mind cheating with the XV for a day or two…
Nate says
September 13, 2018 at 10:40 amHi Chris
Thanks for your input and the details about your experience! Appreciate it.
And really glad you like it. It’s one of my all time favorites!
Good info about the wax too – not something I’ve had to wax as I’ve only ever ridden it for a day at a time and it also comes to me waxed – so that’s good to know.
Jonne says
October 24, 2017 at 3:35 pmAs the previous poster, I’ve been researching a lot the past weeks and found your site a great help! Based on your site and several other review sites, I’ve determined that the Yes PYL seems to be exactly what I’m looking for in a board.
I’ve been looking for good deals, and found a site that sells the 16/17 version of this board for 400 euros. However, they only have the 162 cm version (waist width = 25.5 cm) in stock for that price, and as my height is 198 cm with a boot size of EU 47.5/US 13.0, I was wondering if this would suit me. I’ve looked up some information on minimum waist width, and from what I can find I need a minimum of 26.5 on paper, but I realize that’s based on averages. I do have Burton SLX boots, so they’re quite compact. Do you think I could read this board without any toe drag? And do you think the baord size is OK for me in the first place? Thanks a lot in advance!
Nate says
October 25, 2017 at 12:44 pmHi Jonne
Unfortunately, I think the 162 would be too narrow for US13s. You would have a high risk of toe drag there, IMO. Even though Burton’s boot do have a really good reduced footprint, they won’t get you as narrow as 255mm. You could possibly getaway with as low as 260mm but maybe 262mm as a safer bet – but 255mm would be very risky.
In terms of length, I think the 162 is potentially too short for you anyway, just based on your height – but I would need to know your weight as well to make a more accurate size recommendation.
Hope this helps
Jonne says
October 25, 2017 at 6:32 amHi Nate,
like the previous poster, I’ve been doing a lot of research over the past week and have found your site a great help! Based on your site and on a number of other review sites, I’ve concluded that the Yes PYL is exactly the sort of board I’m looking for.
I’ve been looking at a good deal online, and found a shop that sells the 16/17 version of the board for 400 euros. However, they only have the 162 cm (waist width 25,5 cm) for this price. I’m not sure if this size would be appropriate for me, as my height and weight are 198 cm and 83 kg’s respectively, with boot size EU 47.5/US 13.0. I do have Burton SLX boots, so they are quite compact. I’ve been researching the relation of waist width vs boot size online, and found that for my height, I should have a waist width of 26,5 cm or higher. However, this is calculated based on an average board size and average boot profile.
Do you think I could ride this board without toe drag? And do you think the size fits my specs in the first place?
Thanks in advance!
Nate says
October 25, 2017 at 1:02 pmHi Jonne
Didn’t see this message when I replied to your other post – thanks for including your weight.
I think you would be better off with a length of around 165cm. So, like I said in my other reply, I don’t think this is quite the right size for you. And the width is just too risky IMO, unfortunately.
Jonne says
October 26, 2017 at 1:12 amThanks for your reply! I’m glad I asked you, instead of giving in to the impulse of just buying it. I also found a 165 cm version of the PYL for a decent price, but that only has a waist width of 25.8 cm so the difference is minimal. From what I can find online, the only version of the PYL that has a width of 26 is the 160W, but that would be too short. Does this mean this board just isn’t right for me? And if so: which board would you recommend that is the most similar to the PYL, that does fit my specs? I’m looking for a board that has great float in powder when I get lucky, but is also able to carve well and hold its edge in the often hard snow/icy conditions in the French and Austrian Alps.
Sorry about the double post by the way, I didn’t see my question appear on the site after I posted it, so I thought that something had gone wrong. After I posted the second, I realized it’s supposed to work like that haha.
Nate says
October 26, 2017 at 10:34 amYou’re very welcome Jonne.
All good, I often get double comments for that reason – no worries at all.
Yeah unfortunately there isn’t really a suitable size for you for the PYL, IMO.
I think that the Rossi XV would be a great option for you in terms of being just as good in hard/icy conditions as the PYL and being great in powder, for carving and for speed – and comes in a 164W (264mm) which I think would be a great size for you as well. With Burton boots, I think this width will be wide enough and is a good length. That’s what I would go with for you.
But if you want another option you could also check out the Jones Flagship 165W (266mm waist). Still quite good in hard/icy conditions but just not quite as good as the PYL and XV.
Of course, there are other options, but these are what I recommend the most – I think that Rossi XV 164W is probably the best option for you.
Hope this helps
Jonne says
October 26, 2017 at 12:56 pmIt definitely helps, thanks again!
The Rossi Magtek XV is what I figured would be the best alternative as well, so I’m glad to see you confirm it. However, I cannot find a good deal on that board anywhere, so I’d have to shell out the full 600 euros for it. Although I get that a sweet deal shouldn’t be a reason to buy a board, that was another reason I was so set on the PYL.
Final question: I just measured my current 163 cm board (don’t know why I hadn’t done that before) and noted its waist width is 25,4 cm, and I never experienced any toe drag with it. I always had my bindings set in a duck stance though (to like +15 and -15), which I don’t intend to do with the new freeride board. Do you think that is the only reason I was doing fine with my old board, or does this mean I could be OK with the PYL 165? If so, I might still go for the PYL. If not, I’ll either suck it up and pay the full 600, or wait until after the season ends to find a good deal.
Nate says
October 27, 2017 at 11:15 amHi Jonne
Certainly a duck stance will help with width. If you have one of your bindings on a smaller angle, that will add to the overhang. Not necessarily going to be a deal breaker though – but it will increase the likelihood of drag.
Just to make sure, how did you measure the waist width? The waist width should be measured at the narrowest point of the board and it should be measured on the base of the board. If you measured it on the top sheet, it’s going to give you a smaller reading, than what the actual waist width measurement of that board is. If you have measured on the base, then I am very surprised you haven’t haven’t had any issues with US13s on a 254mm waist width.
But if that is the case, so long as you don’t have your back foot on too straight an angle, then maybe you could get away with the 165 PYL.
What is your current board?
Jonne says
October 28, 2017 at 8:19 amHi Nate,
I measured it again on the base (I did measure the top the first time), but it’s about the same width. It’s a K2 Lifelike 161 from 2012.
However, after posting my last question, I actually found a Rossi Magtek XV 164W 2017 for 445 euros on some Italian site that didn’t pop up on my previous Google searches, which I bought! So I don’t have to take the gamble with the PYL or wait for next season to have a proper board after all! 🙂
Thanks a lot for all your advice! If I hadn’t put my question here, I’d likely have bought the PYL 162 and regretted it later.
Nate says
October 28, 2017 at 11:37 amHi Jonne
Awesome that you found a deal on the XV!
Weird that the measurement is the same at the base – it should always be a larger number because of the angle on the sidewalls. But I did look up the 161 Lifelike from 2012 and it is supposed to have a 252mm waist width!
Anyway that doesn’t matter now that you’ve found your board. Hope you have enjoy your new XV and have an awesome season on it!
Devon Magnuson says
November 13, 2017 at 10:27 pmHi Nate!
First time poster on your site, really appreciate the info you put out here for everyone.
Me: 6’3 190 lbs (fully suited) intermediate-advanced resort free rider. I’ve been snowboarding 5-10 times per year since I was 12 (16 years, yikes), a few years more when I was living closer to the mountain. I’m in Vancouver so hit Whistler an awful lot as well as some cascade range mountains in Washington State and BC. I mostly live for the heavy snowfall days days where I’ll take off work and run up for first tracks on the bowl and keep going all day. If it’s not a powder day I’m usually not making a day trip but if it’s a planned weekend I’ll be cruising down the groomers as fast as I can first thing. Have dabbled in a little cat skiing and one backcountry trip, would be interested in doing a little more of that but not committed enough to get a split board.
I think you have me sold on the Yes pick your line, was thinking Burton Flight attendant and Jones Flagship from the store and my previous research, but I see I can grab a 165 online. I have Salomon Malamutes in size 11 US so just wanted to make sure you thought I’d be ok with that (they are out of the 160W and I think that would be too short anyways) at 258mm width. If you think I’m better off with the Burton Flight attendant, the Jones or another one I’m open to suggestions.
Also, any recommendations on bindings to go with the Salomon Malamutes and the board you’ve suggested?
Thanks! Appreciate your help.
Devon
Nate says
November 14, 2017 at 3:44 pmHi Devon
Thanks for your message. Yeah, based on your specs and how you like to ride, then something around 163 to 165 would be a good length and something freeride definitely sounds like your style. For the PYL going a little longer is a good idea.
In terms of width, the 258mm on the PYL could be ok for US11s, depending on your binding angles. If you tend to ride in more of a duck stance with your back foot on a reasonable angle – like -12 or -15, then I’d say it would be fine (even on Salomon boots that don’t tend to have a lot of reduced footprint). However, if your back foot tends to be straighter, then I would say that you’d want to go a little bit wider.
E.g. if you have something like a 3 degree angle or straight back foot, then I’d say try to go wider, like 262mm+
If so, then something like the Flight Attendant 162W – it’s little shorter than the 165 PYL – but it also has a greater effective edge to length ratio – and also that extra width will not only help to accomodate a straighter back foot, but it also adds surface area for float in powder – so you can afford to go a little shorter in that sense too.
For the Flagship, I’d say 162W too – if you really wanted to stick with 165 though, you could go 165W in the Flagship – but I think the 162W would probably be the best option, though both would work.
So yeah, I’d say a more angled back foot – then PYL 165 otherwise either FA 162W or Flagship 162W.
In terms of bindings, I’d say that given the stiffness of your boots and those boards (though FA a little softer), and given your preferred style, then something stiff and responsive would work well.
If you end up going with the PYL or Flagship, then something from the following list would work well.
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
And if you go FA, then something from the list above will work but you could also look at this list too:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps with your decision
Devon Magnuson says
November 15, 2017 at 1:42 pmHi Nate,
Thanks for getting back to me so quick, really appreciate it.
I’m thinking of trying a bit of a forward stance for the first time (+18 +3) so was worried about the overhang, I decided to go with the 162W FA with the Genesis X EST Bindings after some careful consideration. Would have liked to try the PYL, just didn’t feel comfortable with the width.
Thanks again for the help, it really assisted me making a decision!
Devon
Nate says
November 16, 2017 at 3:39 pmYou’re very welcome Devon. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new gear! Sounds like a great setup to me.
Tobi says
November 15, 2017 at 12:54 pmHey Nate!
First of all, really appreciate the effort you put into this and taking time to answer all our requests!
I’m going to Japan next January for bit more than 2 weeks and looking for a fitting free ride board.
Other than that I ride 20-30 days in Austria.
Current boards are a 2012 Skate Banana in 153 and a 2017 Rome Agent Rocker in 157.
I’m 178cm/75kg/Us10
Now the two boards I’ve looked at are the Pyl and the Jones Flagship.
I need something that works for my Japan trip and can go fast on groomers in Austria.
What sizes would you recommend?
For the Flagship I’d probably go for 161. With the Pyl I’m very unsure between 159 and 162.
I’ve read your comments for the others with the 159 being more playful and 162 more stable, but do you think the 162 could be too big for me since I’m used to shorter and softer boards?
Second question would be concerning bindings.
Currently on a Flow Fuse Hybrid. I’m happy but not overwhelmed with these. Have old 2013 Union Force on my Banana as well. Would they fit the Pyl or Flagship or do I need to upgrade?
I’d love something which I could use for the Rome Agent as well.
Thinking about Burton Genesis, Genesis X (Maybe too stiff?) or Union Atlas/ Ultra Or Ride Capo (probably cheapest).
Thanks again for your help and effort!
Looking forward to hearing from you
Tobi
Nate says
November 16, 2017 at 3:38 pmHi Tobi
Thanks for your message.
In terms of sizing for the Pick Your Line, this board is something you can go a little longer with. It has a smaller effective edge to length ratio – so it doesn’t feel like you’re riding as long as you are (there’s a big old nose on it that only really comes into play in powder). So for that I would go longer than I would in the Flaghip. So, if you’re willing to go 161 in Flagship, then yeah the 162 would be fine for the PYL.
I almost feel like the 161 Flagship is a little long – the 158 though is perhaps a little short given that you already have a 157 all-mtn-freestyle deck and you want this one for powder. If there was a 160 or 159, then I’d say that for the Flagship.
But I think the 162 Pick Your Line would be a good size for you. You’ll be going up 5cm on your Agent Rocker but I think you want feel that extra 5cm as a PYL size to size would feel a little shorter than the Agent Rocker, if that makes sense. So, if you had an Agent Rocker in a 162, it would feel longer than the PYL in the 162. So, even though you will be going longer, it won’t feel as long as adding 5cm (IMO). And since you want a bit longer anyway, for the style of board, then I think that would be the way to go.
Finally, I would put you at around a 159cm for all-mountain size – for freeride I would add a couple of cms to that – which is around that size for the 162 PYL.
In terms of bindings, I think the Genesis X would work well – the Genesis wouldn’t quite be stiff/responsive enough for either the PYL or Flagship. The Force would be a slightly better bet than the Genesis. The Atlas would be a good choice, as would the Ride Capo. But for more details on those you can check out my reviews, if you’d like.
>>Ride Capo Review
>>Union Atlas Review
>>Union Force Review
I haven’t yet published my review for the Genesis X
And also check out the following, these are a good fit for that board, IMO (note that the all-mountain-freeride post below hasn’t yet been updated for 2018 but the freeride one has).
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
And one final thing! If you could let me know your boot size, then I can just make sure we’re looking at something with the right width too.
Hope this helps
Dexter says
November 17, 2017 at 4:26 pmI think I can add my 2 cents for this as I have very similar stats (5’11, 170lbs dry and probably 180-185 with gear, size 10US boots).
For the last 2 years I rode the 159PYL with Genesis X bindings and I can say that the two are about as good of a match as you can get. I originally had Malavitas but I found them too soft for the board and my riding style. To be fair I haven’t tried any other brand of bindings on this board though.
My 159 PYL delaminated, which was warrantied (I wrote about it in one of the earlier comments here) and I was given a store credit for any board I wanted. I have done countless hours of research and demoing boards last year but keep coming back to the PYL because it’s hands down the best board I have ever ridden.
I just picked up my new PYL but decided to go with the 162 this time as I’m looking for a bit more float and stability at speed. The 159 didn’t necessarily do either of these bad but I feel the 162 will be ideal. Especially once I add on my gear and pack weight (avy gear, food, layers etc.). I do tend to ride a lot of tight trees but I don’t think it will be an issue as the 159 was super nimble so even if the 162 isn’t as nimble it should be sufficient (fingers crossed).
Long story short, I don’t think you can go wrong with the Genesis X. As for size, I haven’t actually ridden the 162 yet but I would lean towards that. That being said I think the 159 would be great to if you want something a bit quicker edge-to-edge and nimble.
Nate says
November 18, 2017 at 12:49 pmThanks Dexter! Great to hear someone elses take on this.
Tobi says
November 18, 2017 at 2:20 pmThanks for your comment Dexter!
It will probably depend on what’s on sale the next few weeks but I’m really looking forward to my new set up!
Enjoy your time on the new deck!
( my shoe size is Us10 but I’m currently on US 9,5 Ride Trident Boots, so I think width shouldn’t be an issue!)
Thanks for your help, now we just hope for good deals and snow!
Tobi
Tobias says
December 4, 2017 at 5:43 amHey!
I got the 162 PYL with Burton Genesis X in the end.
Can’t wait to try then out in a few weeks !
Will let you know if I’m happy with the setup!
Nate says
December 4, 2017 at 12:11 pmHi Tobias
Thanks for the update. Sounds like a mean setup to me! Look forward to hearing what you think once you’ve had a chance to test them on snow.
robert says
November 20, 2017 at 5:57 amHI Nate,
it is a pleasure to read through your comments and advises and so i would love to address a question to you as well.
I have already decided to go with a PYL 2018 but i could not decide wether to go with 162 or with 165cm.
My current board is a burton custom x 164 and besides powder, i love to charge and carve on icy pists.
I am used to longer boards and really enjoy the high speed carving.
I am 176cm with around 72kg and shoe size 10UK or 10.5US.
You mentioned, that the PYL can be a bit longer due to the shorter effective edge.
Would you recomment the 162 or 165 in this case?
I really apreciate your opinion her,
Rob
Nate says
November 20, 2017 at 3:02 pmHi Robert
Usually I wouldn’t recommend that long for your specs – but since you are used to and like longer boards, then I think the 165cm is probably the better bet. If you like the Custom X in the 164, then the 165 is the closest in terms of effective edge – the PYL is going to give you more float in powder though – that will be the biggest plus over the Custom X. Even the 165 PYL is going to drop a little in terms of effective edge (but not too much). The 162 would drop quite a bit in comparison. Ordinarily I would say 162 (or even 159) for your specs but given your preference for longer and your current board, you will likely prefer the 165cm.
Hope this helps
Alec says
December 20, 2017 at 1:49 amHi Nate,
Thanks for your website, really useful info, specially for those of us ‘on the hunt’!
PYL sizing… I am undecided on a 160W or 162, at one point I even considered a 159 but I don’t think that would work. I’m 5’10, 167lbs.. Boot size US10. Binding angles for freeride front 19/20, back -5/-6.
I am concerned about heel and toe drag on the 25.5 waist of the 162, that’s why I was considering a 160W.. Some ppl say the 25.5 will be ok, others not so. What do you think?
Regards
Alec
Nate says
December 20, 2017 at 2:09 pmHi Alec
Thanks for your message.
Ordinarily, in terms of length, I’d say 159 would be your best bet. But you can certainly go longer on this board – especially for the style of riding it’s designed for – and with it’s long nose, the effective edge is shorter than some boards at the same length. That said, the 159 would still work for you with this board – but the 162 is an option as well.
In terms of width, I don’t see any issues with the width on the 162. I ride US10 boots and I’ve never had any issues at a 255mm waist – even with a really straight back binding angle. In fact I rode the 159 PYL with +18/+3 angles and I didn’t run into any drag issues. Now, I don’t get down and do any Euro carves, but I still carved this board pretty hard and didn’t get any drag.
That said, the 160W isn’t fiendishly wide either. So that’s still an option (I know I haven’t exactly narrowed it down for you so far!). I think you’d actually be ok on all 3 of those sizes. If you really like to get right up on those edges, e.g. if you like to euro carve, that kind of thing, then go for the 160W to be safe – but I think you would still be fine on the 162.
I’d say the pros and cons for each.
~ The 159 would be less stable at speed and be more work in deep powder – but would still be absolutely fine in powder – this board is made for it and I loved the 159 in powder. This would be the most agile option for, being narrower and shorter. The best option for the trees too, IMO.
~ The 160W and 162 are probably going to have a fairly similar surface area. You’ve got a couple of extra cms on the 162 but it’s narrower. So they’ll float equally well or close to, I would say. When on an edge the 162 will have a bit more effective edge so maybe a little more stable at speed.
~ The 160W and 162 will likely be fairly close in terms of edge-to-edge speed. The 160W being wider would be slower than the 159, but the 162, though longer, is narrower than the 160W so those things would probably cancel each other out, at least somewhat.
Personally, I wouldn’t go wide, but I just don’t like the feel of anything over like 258mm at the waist and only that wide when I’m using straighter binding angles, unless I’m down-sizing the length. I just find it harder work and slower edge-to-edge. But some people prefer wider – and some people are more into things like Euro Carving than I am.
So yeah, I’d say you’d be fine on the 162 (255mm waist) but if you were really worried the 160W is an option, especially if you like to get really low on your carves.
Hope this helps with your decision
Alec says
December 27, 2017 at 3:31 amThanks for your comments Nate. My intention is to Euro carve more with this board that was why I was concerned with drag on the 162, but my boots have a short footprint, I trust I can get away with it. Also displacing the stance a bit further back will help with back foot drag if needed.
This is going to be a quiver board and I have other shorter boards for when powder and off-piste is not an option, that is also a reason to rule out the 159.
I think it will be a 162, I can get a good deal on last year’s model and the difference is not that huge? Just a little stiffer the new model but profile, design etc remain the same. I think it’s probably worth it for a 220 USD save.
Thanks again and Happy Christmas & New Year!
Nate says
December 27, 2017 at 10:38 amHi Alec
Yeah with that short footprint that’ll give you more leeway there too – even for euro carving.
Also agree that going 162 if a quiver board, is a good option.
The 2018 isn’t that different, so I think saving 220 is definitely the way to go!
Happy Christmas and New Year to you too!
Alex says
December 28, 2017 at 4:18 pmHi Nate,
Thanks for the awesome site and thorough reviews of gear!
I’m currently looking for a new board and have the the YES PYL along with the NS Chairman, Jones Flagship, as well as the NS West, and YES Standard on my radar and hoping you can give your thoughts.
Me: 5’11″/170lb (dry)/US11 boot (Ride Insano)
I am coming from an NS Premier F1 161, ride Colorado mountains, and like to charge hard and fast whether on groomers or (preferably) in the trees and off-piste pow. I don’t ever hit the park, but like to hit natural jumps and rollers.
The YES was looking to be top of my list, but I can only get it in 159 (253 under foot) and *maybe* 162 (255 underfoot) and am worried about toe drag (I don’t really Euro carve) as YES size chart says size 7-9 for both those sizes. Am I being too cautious on the waist sizing? I believe the Ride boots have are generally on the short side for their size. The Jones sizing says 9.5-11 for their 161, but that is only 252 waist, so I’m kind of confused there. The other boards I can get in just about any size they make.
Assuming waist size becomes a non-issue, which board do you like best for me? I’m leaning more toward the freeride boards, but the couple all-mountains are also tempting.
Thanks for any input and keep up the great work!
Nate says
December 29, 2017 at 8:15 pmHi Alex
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I think you could ride a 159 – but for a freeride board you probably want to go a little longer an since you’re used to a 161, it’s probably not ideal but still doable. In terms of the width, the 253mm waist on the 159 would be risking too narrow, IMO. With low profile boots (which you have) and binding angles like +15/-15 I think you’d probably get away with it, particularly if you aren’t doing any euro carving. However, the 162 would give you more leeway there. You’d still want to have reasonable binding angles there – although if you’ve never had any issues on your Premier F1, then I think you’d be fine given the 256mm waist of the Premier 161 (based on 2014 model) with 300mm tip and tail. The 162 PYL has a 255mm waist and 301mm tail an 306mm tip.
You’re other option, if you have it available, is the 160W. If you have binding angles with a straighter back foot – e.g. +18/-3 or something like that, then the 160W would be a better bet – and given the extra width, it would feel more like a 162 anyway – particularly for float in powder.
In terms of what YES says and what Jones say, I would disagree with both! YES are on a mission to get people on wider boards and really encourage it. Jones almost the other way around. But for the Flagship, I would say that the 161 would be too narrow for you (252mm waist, 291mm tail, 292mm tip). Either the 159W or the 162W would be the better choices if you went Flagship.
The Chairman is going to be the most similar to the Premier F1, in that it has rocker between the feet and camber tip and tail, and of course because it’s Never Summer. However, the Chairman now has (starting with the 2018 model) Never Summer’s Ripsaw Rocker camber profile, which has more camber and more aggressive camber and less rocker. The Premier (and the 2017 and previous chairman’s) had their Original Rocker camber, which is a more playful, gentle camber profile. I think, by what you’re describing, that you would appreciate the extra stability, carving ability and pop that you would get from the Ripsaw Rocker compared to the Original Rocker Camber.
Sizing for the Chaiman X, I’d say either the 160 or 161X. The 160 has a 256mm waist, the same as the 161 Preimier you’re on now. However, the tail is just 290mm and the tip 295mm – so it’s risking being narrower at the inserts (if only snowboard companies would just publish width at the inserts!). The 161X is 266mm at the waist – so getting on the wide side for 11s, IMO, but it’s also just 300mm tail and 305mm tip, which is on the narrow side for a 266mm waist.
YES Standard you would go 159W – and even though that’s shorter than what we’re looking at for others, it’s a bigger board than it looks. It’s 263mm at the waist but it’s cinched in at the waist (what YES call mid-bite) so it’s quite wide overall (310.5mm tip and tail). So that extra width compensates for the shorter length. So, I think that size would be fine for you if you went down that path.
For the West, I’d say 162. It’s the same waist (256mm) and tip and tail (300mm) as the Premier, so I think you’d be fine on it width-wise – and that’s a good length I’d say.
If you’re looking for that board to charge hard and fast on, then I’d say the PYL, Chairman or Flagship are the way to go. The Standard and West are also pretty good at speed, so they would do the job for you for sure – but not quite to the same level for speed/carving/powder. They’re softer flexing too, so you’d have to get used to that – whereas the Flaghsip, Chairman are all similar in flex the Premier (on paper – I haven’t ridden the Premier).
The Standard and West are going to be better for jumps, IMO – even natural hits an rollers – but the other boards will certainly do the job there and if speed/powder/carving are more important, then I’d stick to one of those. But if you think you’d like something that’s a bit softer flexing, a little more maneuverable at slower speeds and a little better for jumps, riding switch etc, then you could go for something like the Standard or West.
Hope this helps with your decision
Greg says
January 12, 2018 at 7:54 amNate,
Thanks for all of the feedback on this board. I’ll try keep this simple as it touches on much of what has been asked, but a little different.
My details: 6’2″ / 180 / 11.5 Ride Insano Boot
Need: New board and bindings
Options: Jones Flagship 161 or 162w, or PYL 159 or 160w.
Riding Style: Intermediate+, riding for 20 years, ride 5-10 times a year mostly Colorado mountains or Mammoth in CA, I no longer like to go in park, just floaty airs and hits etc.. I like to free ride and love the trees, powder is great when I get it, love to go real fast on groomers and carve and surf up the mountain.
Questions: My main concern is toe/heal drag here, and size/width of board. Both appear to be great boards and excellent choices for me. I think I probably need to go with a wider board than the 252mm Wide Flagship 161 which is what i was initially looking at until I saw your review of this board. I see that the PYL 159 is 255mm, is that an option or still not wide enough (i like the sounds of a little bit shorter of board for trees and bumps etc.)? I also like the idea of the PYL 160w as it is wider but not as wide as the Flagship 162w (do you think that would be wide enough?).
I will also need a new pair of bindings, any advice there? Ideally not breaking the bank but a good solid binding that will last and go well with the Insano boots and the board and possible help bridge the size of board and toe/heel drag.
Thanks!
Greg
Nate says
January 12, 2018 at 7:38 pmHi Greg
Thanks for your message.
In terms of width, I think the 160W PYL sounds like it will be the best option. With Ride boots (low profile) you give yourself a bit more leeway, but I still think the 253mm waist on the 159 will be just a little narrow – especially if your back binding is any straighter than like 15 degrees. And yeah the 161 Flagship also too narrow in my opinion – and narrower at tip and tail too. The 162W Flagship would also be a good width – it’s wider at the waist (263mm) than the PYL 160W (260mm) but is narrower tip and tail. But if you’re looking to go a little shorter, then the 160W might be a better fit. I would put you on around a 161, 162, but given that you’re going wide and are looking to go a little shorter, I think the 160 would suit you well.
If you have something like +15/-15 binding angles, then you might just squeeze on the 159 PYL, but I think it would be a risk and the 160W is the better option, particularly if you have a straighter back foot than that. It doesn’t sound like you have it as an option, but the 159W Flagship would also be a good size for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
John McKinlay says
January 26, 2018 at 10:37 pmHello Nate! After a lot of research on my next board, I came across your site. Great work!
My question is more geared towards rider level and a board to match.
I would consider myself an intermediate rider. I’m all about the carve. I never ride switch, I stay away from the park and trees, and I’m happiest bombing. With this is mind, I started looking at the directional freeride boards, only to find they are all “expert to elite” recommended. Everything from the Jones Flagship, Burton Flight Attendant, to the Nidecker Concept and the Yes Pick Your Line.
I recently discovered the Jones Explorer, which seems like it’s gotten rave reviews from everyone. I’ve been hesitant to pull the trigger though because I’m torn: Do I go with a board that will force my skills to progress and therefore a better investment, (I’d love a Yes PYL) or go with a safe bet like a Jones Explorer that has been labeled a little more “playful” and “entry level”?
I just got back from Tahoe and was on a rental Salomon 156 hybrid camber which I was surprised was such a fun ride. I’m 5’11, 160 LBS, and rocking the size 10 Adidas Acerra ADV on Burton Genesis X bindings. Thanks in advance for your help!
-John
Nate says
January 27, 2018 at 9:50 amHi John
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tough call when you’re at that intermediate level and you’re likely looking for a board that you don’t want to upgrade from. And I can see your motivation to look to a more advanced board given the style you like to ride.
However, the problem with going too big a step up, is that your technique and progression can suffer, if the board is too far beyond where you’re at currently. And sometimes confidence can take a hit too. So, whilst going for something a little bit above your current level can help to push along your progress, going too far above doesn’t work that well, IMO/experience. Just like riding with someone who is a little better than you is great, and can help you to improve faster, but if you ride with someone who’s like streets ahead and you try to keep up with them, you’re technique goes to crap or you have a big spill and loose confidence or the likes.
I think the PYL would be a good option for you’re style, but at an intermediate level, I think that it’s going to feel on the stiff side, and may not be as forgiving as you’ll need it to be at this stage.
The Explorer isn’t something I would call an entry level board either. It’s definitely not something I would recommend to a beginner. And, from the feel I got from it, it felt a little stiffer than the 6/10 it gets – not by much but I’d say more like 6.5/10. It’s something I would recommend for solid intermediate riders and above, so I think that would be a great choice for you – and would fit your style well. The Capita Mercury would be another board that I think would also be a great option.
Length-wise, I’d say something around 157, 158 would be a good size to go with for you.
So for the Explorer and Mercury I would say:
~Explorer: 156 or 159 – the 156 is going to be more nimble and quicker edge-to-edge and a bit more of a forgiving rider – and will feel just a little softer flexing. The 159 will be better for stability at speed and in powder (if you’re in there) – the 159 will be slightly more challenging but is also something that would be a great size for you, even at an advanced level. Usually I would say go 156 as an intermediate rider over the 159, but considering the style you like to ride, I’d be leaning more 159.
~Mercury: 157 – again you could think about going to the 159 but in this case, I think the 157 would be the better option. Part of the reason for that is that the Mercury is a wider board (on the 157 there’s a 257mm waist with 301mm tip and tail vs the Explorer 159 with a 254mm waist and 298mm tip and tail).
If you were to go PYL, then the 156 is probably the best bet for now (as going shorter would help it to be a bit more forgiving/easier to ride) but at a more advanced level, I think the 159 would be the better option.
Hope this helps and gives you more to go off for your decision
Vitaliy says
March 19, 2018 at 3:30 pmHi Nate, my height is 176 cm and I weigh 86 kg. I select a universal board for weight and height for carving and freeriding. I rode the flagship 161 carbon and 164 standard. I like more of this line 164. Tell me what size to choose 165? And if you compare two boards flagship i yes. Which one did you like best?
Nate says
March 20, 2018 at 9:09 amHi Vitaliy
Thanks for your message.
Ordinarily I would say something around 159, 160 for you for an all-mountain board, but for freeride/carving, you can certainly go a little longer – so 162, 163 would be appropriate. But personal preference comes into it too, so if you feel like you would prefer to go more like 164, 165, then that’s certainly not off the cards.
There’s just something about the YES Pick Your Line that works really well for me – the Flagship is a great board, but, for me, I liked the PYL better.
In terms of size, I would usually say go 162 for PYL, especially if you are going to have to ride it slow at any point, but since it sounds like you had a good time on the 164 Flagship over the 161, then the 165 might be the better option for you. And the 165 certainly is within what you can ride with your specs. I personally wouldn’t go that long, but I have a preference for slightly shorter boards. For the Flagship, the 164 is probably your best bet, given that you liked it more than the 161 (allbeit that it wasn’t a direct comparison, because the 161 was the Carbon Flagship).
Hope this helps
Louis M says
March 30, 2018 at 11:04 amHi Nate,
I love this site and your reviews. Please keep it up!
I come from 20+ years of skiing (a previous life) and now 11+ years snowboarding, approx. 25+ days every year – always in the French, Italian or Austrian alps. Looking at your blog about how to rate my skill level, https://snowboardingprofiles.com/what-are-the-snowboarding-skill-levels-discover-yours, I think I can (modestly) place myself at the low end of the ADVANCED level. I’m completely relaxed on blues, reds and blacks -and maintain solid technique when carving and bombing on these groomers. However, on some of the very steepest patches of challenging black groomers, or when meeting large moguls at the end of a sunny day, I will slow up and skid some of the turns to get through it. Recently I’ve been pushing myself to keep a smooth carve or maybe straight-line it even on these steepest and most moguly stretches.
Over the past 5 or so years, I’ve also been throwing myself onto off-piste and powder whenever possible – sometimes a full day with a guide. I love these moments. I’m confident (and have great fun) on most deep-snow runs. But I do feel that when going down the steeper places in deep/new snow, I will have a harder time turning with a good posture and riding down smoothly – which I admit is largely is due to lack of skill but maybe also somewhat due to the full-length of camber shape on my Burton Custom – which I understand is not an optional board for riding on powder – and is perhaps hampering me from improving my deep snow/powder skills on the more challenging steep places?
I have been riding my trustworthy Burton Custom (classic camber) 158 cm board for the past 4 or so years. This season in France, I rented a Custom X 2017 just to try it because I heard it was a possible “next step up” in the learning curve. After 2-3 hours of getting used to the unfamiliar stiff and planky feel of the Custom X, I started to really enjoy carving with it and used it the whole week on the grooms – many of them super-cruddy and unprepared, and I enjoyed its powerful “pop”, high speed, bombing and knifing through uneven snow, and longer glide on uphills and flats compared to my regular Custom. Near love at first sight except that when I took the Custom X into the deep snow, I felt it got cranky and unmanageable unless I pointed it straight. I was much harder to turn and float in the deep stuff compared to my own Custom regular although I set the bindings back. I felt that this “X” was not one with the powder riding which I love and strive to master.
So… now I want to look elsewhere for my “upgrade” to a board that caters to the riding style I find myself pursuing all the time – which is towards Freeride – to bomb grooms at high speed, carving clean lines, and venturing back country for unspoiled snow and off-piste/powder wherever I can find it. I don’t visit the park at all – but will sometimes play around with brief spurts of buttering and low jumps while I ride. Haven’t gone much into trees yet, but starting to.
Been reading all the informative reviews and follower-comments on your site. The YES PYL sounds like a great board for this stuff. I’m also looking at the Rossignol XV Magtek.
Finally here come my questions …
1. Would either of these boards be right for me and a good “driver” to the next level
2. Is one of these better for me than the other – or would you suggest other alternatives?
3. Size – should I go for a 159, 160W or a 162 length for these boards in relation to my size and level?
4. Bindings – can you recommend optimal bindings to go with my new board? I hear that the Burton Genesis X is a good option? Or should I go for something softer at my level?
My set up today is:
Boots: Burton Imperial, Imprint 3 liner (stiffness), US size: 10
Board: Burton Custom 158 with Malavita (EST) bindings
My height: 5.8 feet
My weight: 158 lbs
Preferred stance – duck +15, -15 – approx. 22.5” (57 cm) wide, a bit set back.
Sorry for the long story to get to simple questions.. ?
Louis
Nate says
April 2, 2018 at 9:28 amHi Louis
Thanks for your message (and sorry for the delayed reply, have been on vacation).
Thanks for the details:
1. I think a freeride board definitely sounds like the right thing for you. Either of these boards would work for sure,
2. The PYL would be my top recommendation for you – just because it’s a little better (from experience) with jumps and uneven snow, but the Rossi XV is also a good option, IMO.
3. In terms of size, I would say 159 for the PYL. I think the 160W would be a little too wide and the 162 a little too long. The 156 would be doable too, but since you’re used to a 158 already and this is the kind of board you can ride a little longer than usual, the 159 would be the best pick for you, IMO. 159 for the Rossignol XV as well, IMO.
4. The Burton Genesis would work with either of those boards. I would say anything from the following list would be a good match:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Or this if you wanted to go a bit stiffer again
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
For these types of boards, because of that extra stiffness, I would recommend going with something at least 7/10 in terms of stiffness, as if you go too soft, the bindings don’t do as good a job of driving the board, if that makes sense. That said, I did ride the PYL 2019 recently with Malavitas and it was fine – but if I was to buy bindings for it, I would go a little stiffer.
Hope this helps
Louis M says
April 7, 2018 at 6:45 amHi Nate,
Thanks for the thorough reply. Getting excited now about a Yes PYL! Good to hear you were on vacation. Hope it involved some snowboarding ?
Looking back on my original posted question I can see that I made a typo (or miscalculation) regarding my height. My height is not 5, 8” but 5, 10” (or 177+ cm).
My weight was right. So repeating the facts:
Boots: Burton Imperial, Imprint 3 liner (stiffness), US size: 10
My height: 5.10 feet (177 cm)
My weight: 158 lbs (approx. 72 KG)
Preferred stance – duck +15, -15 – approx. 22.5” (57 cm) wide
Given my true height would the 159 Yes PYL at length 159 still be your best advice for me? I read here on the thread that the PYL can be ridden a bit longer due to the shorter true effective edge with rocker in front. Advantages being more float in powder and more edge bite on grooms. Cons being harder to swing around in the trees….
Sorry for the error regarding my height in my first post… Im sure the 159 board would still be awesome for my 5 10”… and could be that a 162 would be a lot to handle after going from a 158 burton custom … but I thought I’d ask to make sure before I commit the money…. I want the board to last me some years and push me to improve as well …
I expect I will mostly seek out riding in powder, bombing grooms and nice carving,… and less of trees…
And with those preferences in mind, regarding the bindings – should I lean towards the Genesis X flex 7 (which is at the top of your list for all-mountain free ride bindings), rather than stiffer freeride 8-9 flex binding models? Thinking that it could make sense since I’m coming from Malavita flex 5, and the new PYL board is also a significant step upwards in flex and high response. What will be the pros and cons in getting a less responsive flex 7 binding against a more responsive flex 8 binding for my (new) PYL setup. I will want new bindings no matter what since my Malavita’s are EST (as well as rather worn now).
Nate says
April 9, 2018 at 5:37 pmHi Louis
I’d say 159 is still a good call. You could go to 162 but I think 159 is still the best balance. But I wouldn’t go 156 now, given the new specs.
The Genesis X should be ample to drive this board and would be an easier transition to stiffer bindings than going with something 8 or 9. So I think something like that would be a good choice. Like I said, the PYL even worked with Malavitas, so you certainly shouldn’t need to go stiffer than 7/10, IMO.
Matt says
August 3, 2018 at 11:15 amLooking for advice on sizing for a PYL. I’m 5’9 10.5 boot 230lbs. Weight has me looking at the 165 but feel the 162 is a better fit otherwise. Currently riding a 162 Flight Attendant with no problems but the weight range for that was much higher. Any advice?
Nate says
August 4, 2018 at 8:49 amHi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the weight recommendations. Those are just rough guidelines, IMO.
I would put you on a 162 for a standard length. With a Freeride board and particularly with the PYL, its something that you can ride longer if you want. The PYL has quite a long nose – which makes the effective edge not a long as on a lot of boards of equivalent lengths. For example, the 165 PYL has an effective edge of 1230mm and the 162 has an effective edge of 1205mm. Comparatively the Flight Attendant (FA) has an effective edge of 1240mm on the 162. So with the 165 PYL, you’d be closer to the effective edge of the FA 162, than you would be on the PYL 162.
But that said, there’s nothing stopping you from riding the 162. For the PYL I think both the 162 and 165 and options for you. If you feel like you’ll be more comfortable on the 162, then go with that. But the 165 would also be suitable for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps
Jake says
September 25, 2018 at 8:14 pmHey Nate. Been stuck on a few boards…looking for a 1 board quiver, would love you hear your input. I’m considering the yes pick your line, yes standard, Jones mountain twin, and the mercury. I’m 6’2” ~180/185lbs, size 12 thraxis with cartel bindings. I don’t mess with the park, I like to hard carve, bomb, looking for natural kickers, tree runs, and powder runs when the chance presents itself. Would length of 159 or 162 be pretty close on any of those boards? Thanks mannn
Nate says
September 26, 2018 at 11:02 amHi Jake
Thanks for your message.
Since you don’t ride the park, those could all be options as a one-board quiver (if you rode the park, then I would be leaning towards the Standard and Mountain Twin). I would say, from what you’re describing, assuming you’re at a relatively advanced level, that the PYL and Mercury would be your best options, and I’d put the PYL at the top of that list. Sometimes freeride boards don’t necessarily work that well for natural kickers or trees, but the PYL is one that does. The only thing I would say is that, if you like riding switch, doing spins where you take off/land switch, then I would be leaning more back towards the Mercury (or even the Standard or Mountain Twin) but if you don’t ride much switch, then PYL would be a great choice, IMO.
These are the sizes I would say for you, depending on which board you go with. You could also go a little longer if you wanted but I think something in that 159 to 162 range is a good range to look at, given that you like to ride trees and hit natural kickers:
~ PYL: 160W – should be good width-wise for 12s (though could be pushing it if you ride with a very straight back foot, but otherwise should be fine). The 162 would be a length you could ride, but would likely be too narrow.
~ Mercury: 161 – you could also go 159 for this board, in terms of length, but probably too narrow width-wise for 12s. The 161 should be wide enough.
~ Standard: 159
~ Mountain Twin: 161W
Because K2 boots have a longer footprint than some other brands (the Thraxis otherwise a great boot though, IMO), I would be a little bit careful about the boards width. Here are the estimated width at the inserts of the sizes that I have recommended above, based on having measured those boards at the inserts but in different sizes.
~ PYL: 160W (roughly 270mm at inserts estimated)
~ Mercury: 161 (269mm)
~ Standard: 159 (275mm)
~ Mountain Twin: 161W (273mm)
If you ride with a very straight back foot (e.g. if your angles were like +18/+3 or something like that), then you might be pushing it width wise on these, especially given that you like to do deep carves by the sounds of it. But if you’ve got a reasonable angle on that back foot, then you should be OK.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Jake says
September 26, 2018 at 7:36 pmYou went above and beyond with the reply. Great help as always. You’re a national treasure. On behalf of everyone you respond to – thanks for your help and what you do. We really appreciate it all!
Nate says
September 27, 2018 at 10:07 amYou’re very welcome Jake. Thanks for visiting the site and for your kind words! Hope you have an awesome season this coming winter!
Loren says
November 5, 2018 at 12:21 pmhi Nate!
I recently asked you about NS West to change size from 156 to 159.
but I’ve been thinking about looking for something similar to my west, but It is more focused on freeriding (groomers and powder).
I think that the board “Yes pick you line “ could go well
According to your comments this board is more permissive that the other freeride boards. I was wondering if there is a big difference between them (NS West vs Yes PYL). Do You think?
and if I decided to buy it for trying it, what do you think is my size 162 or 159?
I think the 159 could handle it better, but I do not know if I lost a lot on the groommer or powder.
to say that I stay as second boards the west 156
Height 173cm
Weight 195-200lbs
us9.5 boots
intermediate level -advanced
thank!
sorry if it is not well translated
Loren
Loren says
November 5, 2018 at 2:27 pmabout the previous question say that
Looking at your blog about how to rate my skill level, What Are the Snowboarding Skill Levels, I think I can (modestly) place myself at the advance . Thank ?
Nate says
November 6, 2018 at 10:55 amHi Loren
I think the PYL would be a good compliment to the West. And assuming you keep the West, you could use that for your more playful days.
If you do keep the 156 West, then I would go for the 162 PYL. The PYL is something that you can ride a little longer, since it has less effective edge (it’s got a big nose that doesn’t really come into play until you get into powder). And going 162 would give you a board and length that is quite different to your current board. You could use it for powder days and hard charging groomer days. And any time you want a more playful day on the mountain – or want to do a park session or practice some tricks or something, then you could get your 156 West out. The 156 West probably going to be better for trees.
But if you don’t plan on keeping the West, then 159 might be a better all round size, especially if you ride trees or do any freestyle type stuff.
Hope this helps
Louis M says
November 16, 2018 at 2:10 amHi Nate,
I just picked up my new YES Pick Your Line 2019, size 159 and want to mount the bindings (NOW Drive by JJ).
Looking at the specs for the board I read:
– Ref Stance Setback: 1 cm.
– And I measure the distance between the boards 2 reference markers as 57 cm.
– And there are all kinds of other data like: Ref. Point: 58.42 cm, Min stance width 52.4 cm, Max stance width 64.4, Effective edge: 118 cm, Tip length, tail length etc.
Im trying to figure out how much flexibility I have in setting my stance width to something wider than the reference points’ width of 57 cm.
1. What does the specified “Stance Setback” of 1 cm mean? Is this a setback of 1 cm in relation to the effective edge and it applies when I’m on the exact reference stance (binding on the reference markers?) It can’t mean a setback on the whole board length because I measure a much longer tip than tail.
2. Would I be defeating the profile and shape of the board (CamRock and Tapered edges) if I set my rear binding/foot back 1 or 2 cm from the rear reference marker while keeping the front foot on the front ref marker? Or for widening my stance to say 58 cm, is it better to move the front binding a bit forward? Or is it best to adjust both front and back bindings equality (1 cm forward and 1 cm backwards) in relation to the reference markers?
I rode my Custom at a 58+ stance +15, -15 which I may want to copy over to the YES PYL if possible, but the Custom with the channel system made that easier. And I read somewhere that some boards are best ridden at the specified and marked reference stance.
Any advice is most welcome.
Louis M
Nate says
November 16, 2018 at 12:54 pmHi Louis
I’ve been finding that several of the figures on the YES website are a bit off – and differ to their catalog too. Their Catalog notes a reference stance of 57cm (or 57.15 to be exact). Which is what I believe is correct because when I set it up on the reference stance, I measured at 57cm (as you have as well). I think their website stats are just a bit off for whatever reason.
Yes, the setback is always measured on the effective edge (EE). So on a true twin board, the setback on EE is the same as EE over the entire boards. But when the nose is longer than the tip, the setback compared to the overall length of the board is often a lot more. When I measured (with a 57cm stance) I got 54cm to the nose and 48cm to the tail. And this isn’t surprising, given that the PYL has a much longer nose compared to tail.
I try not to stray too far from reference where possible, as that’s where the board was designed to be optimal, IMO. However, moving just 1cm from that shouldn’t be an issue – and I do sometimes adjust where the reference stance isn’t to my liking for stance width. Usually I try to adjust each binding, so if you were able to move the front binding forward a little and the back binding back a little, that’s ideal, as it keeps the setback stance the same. If I’m going to move just one of the bindings off reference, then I would move the back binding back and leave the front binding in place. This will increase your setback stance by the amount that you move the back binding back, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as it’s not too much. If you were to leave the back binding in place and move the front binding forward by 1cm, then you would be erasing any setback stance at all, and would have a centered stance. Move it forward by more than 1cm and you’ll have a set-forward stance, which I would imagine you definitely don’t want.
Not that familiar with YES bindings, but for most bindings, you can usually run the disc so that the wholes are horizontal, which gives you more stance width options. Not as micro-adjustable as the channel but still pretty good.
So yeah, ideally on reference, but as long as you’re not moving too far off it, I think it’s fine, especially if you get a better feel from that wider stance width.
Hope this helps
John says
November 23, 2018 at 8:08 amHi Nate,
I am currently debating between a Yes PYL 156 and the 159. I mainly ride groomers, tree runs, natural features, powder and my riding style is more of a surfy all mountain rider. I currently ride the GNU Mullair 155 that I love for riding tight trees runs and hitting natural feature jumps but I think the Mullair 159 would of been a better choice for me when the powder is deep. Here a my specs:
5’11, 175 lbs
Intermidiate to advance rider
18 years of riding experience
18/9 stance, 23 wide
size 10 Burton Ion
Thank you in advance!
John
Nate says
November 23, 2018 at 4:43 pmHi John
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards the 159 for this board for your specs. It’s the kind of board you can ride a little longer. Also, if you plan on keeping your 155 Mullair, then I think 159 for sure. The other thing is that with a 23″ stance, you’re going to be close to the max stance on the 156 – and quite far off reference. Personally I like to stick as close to reference as possible – some variance is certainly fine, but I don’t like to go too far off. The 159 would be better suited to your stance, IMO.
You could certainly ride the 156 and would be something that you would really enjoy in trees, IMO. But overall, I think the 159 would be the better bet. And if you’re going to keep your Mullair, then I would definitely go 159, then you’ve got something for those deeper days as well as something you could still ride on groomers and in the trees.
Hope this helps with your decision.
John says
November 24, 2018 at 4:32 pmThank you very much Nate!
Nate says
November 25, 2018 at 10:18 amYou’re very welcome John. Hope you have an awesome season!
Andy says
November 23, 2018 at 10:22 pmHi Nate,
Love the site! So I’m an aggressive rider who stays off the groomers as much as possible, never park. I like some drops and side hits, and looking for fresh powder in the trees. I’m 6’2, 11.5 boot and 190-200ish lbs. PYL seems like a great fit but I’m open to other ideas. I’m also wondering about sizes? 165? 162? 160W?
Thanks for your help!
Andy
Nate says
November 25, 2018 at 10:11 amHi Andy
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing I think the 162 would be the best length for you, but with 11.5s it might be a bit narrow. If you’re riding low profile boots and binding angles like +15/-15 or something like that, then you might squeeze onto it, but otherwise it would be pushing it, IMO.
The 160W would be the safer bet. Even then could be pushing it depending on boot profile/angles, but there would be more scenarios where that width would work.
I think the PYL would be a great option for what you’re describing. It’s just whether or not there’s a suitable size.
I think the GNU Mullair in the 161W could be another good option. Not a whole lot wider or longer but just that little bit more leeway.
But you could certainly ride the 160W (and might like that length for the trees too) and potentially even the 162, depending on boots and angles.
Hope this helps
Mike says
December 1, 2018 at 10:57 amHi Nate,
I just got the 2018 159 pyl and I am contimplating if it is the right size for me or if I should get the 162. I am 5’11” And about 180lbs. I got the Vans sequel boots size 9.5, Now Drive bindings and I would say that my skill level is advanced. I like to go off piste and do double black runs when it is a nice powdery day. I got this board for this purpose mostly. I got a Burton Custom for the all mountain boarding and I would like to keep the PYL for pow days. Your thought?
Nate says
December 1, 2018 at 1:22 pmHi Mike
Thanks for your message.
Usually for your specs, I would say around 159 is a good bet. But the PYL is something you can ride a little longer, especially if your main purpose is going to be for riding it in powder.
A couple of things to consider.
1. The 159 is, IMO, a slightly better width for your boots.
2. If you’re going to be riding mostly open terrain and riding at speed, then I think the 162 is probably going to be the better option. But if you’re in trees a lot and tend to ride more technical terrain at slower speeds, then the 159 becomes more appealing, IMO.
3. What’s the size of your Custom? Going a little longer than what you’re used to in the Custom, is probably not a bad idea, taking into account 1 & 2 above as well.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Serg says
December 1, 2018 at 1:26 pmHi Nate,
I decided to buy a second board for freeride days and i find, that YES PYL suits well for my requests (need board for powder, hard/icy snow, trees, carve on groomers). Can’t decide, what size to chose: 162 or 160w. I’m 173 cm, 75-76 kg (165-168 lbs), 10,5-11 US Boot size (28-28,5 cm foot lengh). In the last 2 Years I ride with Burton Ion boots (11US), UMT 158w, Genesis bindings (L) (this season i want to try Falcore (M)) and feel comfortable with this setup. Actualy, I don’t want to go far beyond 160 in terms of length and 26,0 in terms of width (may be I am wrong), but 159 may be to narrow, 160 not enough nimble and 162 to long (and may be to narrow to for 10,5-11US).
Thank you in advance!
Nate says
December 3, 2018 at 10:34 amHi Serg
Thanks for your message.
I think the 160W would be your best bet and would be a good size for you for this board. The 159 would also be a good length, but it would be pushing it width-wise. You do have Burton boots which helps. If you ride +15/-15 angles or something like that, then you could probably get away with it, but I think the 160W would be the safer bet overall. The 162 is getting a bit long for your specs, IMO. Doable, but I think just a bit long to be ideal, particularly as you want to use it in the trees.
Hope this helps with your decision
Mike says
December 3, 2018 at 11:38 pmHi Nate,
Great feedback for everyone!! Unfortunately I didn’t see anyone pertaining to my specs.
I am 57 3/4 with a 9.5 to 10 boot
I ride trees a bit but more open terrain
Thing is I also ride with my girlfriend alot and my daughter at times.
I am wondering A: what size board is best and if I should get a wide or standard and B: if the pyl or the Burton would be better suited for me due to sometimes having to go a little bit slower to hang with my GF and daughter. We ride in Crested Butte and go pretty hard but still we have lots of cruiser days as well.
Thanks for your time
Nate says
December 4, 2018 at 11:17 amHi Mike
Thanks for your message.
As far as Freeride boards go, the PYL is a little more forgiving and I would say the equal of the Burton Flight Attendant in that sense (assuming that it’s the Flight Attendant that you’re talking about). The FA is a little softer flexing but the PYL, more so than other Freeride boards, can be ridden slower as well. It’s still more suited to riding harder and faster, but you can ride it a bit slower too, in my experience.
In terms of width, I wouldn’t go for a wide option with 9.5s or 10s. In terms of length, if you can let me know your weight. That’s the biggest factor when determining length. And also just to clarify, when you say 57 3/4, I’m guessing you mean 5 foot and 7 and 3/4 inches?
Hope this helps
Mike says
December 8, 2018 at 6:52 amThanks for getting back to me!
Yes I was talking about the burton f/a and that is correct I am 5 ft 7 and 3/4 inches I float between 160 and 165 in weight.
Thanks again for getting back to me I am ready to pull the trigger on a new board I just want to make sure I get the best size.
Nate says
December 8, 2018 at 5:46 pmHi Mike
Thanks for clarifying.
Based on everything that you’ve described, I would say to go for the following sizes, depending on the board you choose:
Flight Attendant: 156 – this is going to be pushing it a little in terms of width, depending on a few things. If you’re in 9.5s. I would say you would be fine in most instances, except if you ride with a really straight back binding angle – or with a boot with a longer outersole profile. With 10s, it would be more risky but you should be fine with a decent amount of angle on your back foot. A bit more leeway with a low profile boot.
PYL: This is something that can be ridden a little longer, so the 159 becomes an option. And should be good width-wise for most scenarios. It has a shorter effective compared to overall length, so you get that extra bit of nose in powder but on groomed snow it doesn’t really come into play. The effective edge on the 159 PYL is the same as it is on the 156 Flight Attendant.
But you could certainly also ride the 156 in the PYL. It wouldn’t float as well in powder and it wouldn’t be as stable at speed as the 159 but it would give you a more forgiving option, that would be really good for trees and better suited for riding slower/more casually. Width-wise, it would give you a bit more leeway than the FA 156 but would still be pushing it in a 10, with a straight back binding angle or long profiled boot. With a 9.5 though it should be good in most scenarios.
Hope this helps with your decision
Mike says
January 26, 2019 at 2:50 pmSorry to bother you one more time, and last time. I can purchase a Burton deep thinker for a really good price or a PYL at a pretty good price… I guess the money really isn’t an issue I would rather have the board that would work better for me.
Am wondering if you have ridden the deep thinker and if it compares to the PYL?
Nate says
January 28, 2019 at 12:53 pmHi Mike
I haven’t ridden the Deep Thinker, so can’t compared directly, but it looks fairly similar spec-wise to the Flight Attendant, though I have heard that it feels a little more aggressive. So likely a bit more aggressive than the PYL. My instinct says stick with the PYL or FA, but like I say I couldn’t say for sure, having not ridden it.
Hope this helps
Dave says
January 24, 2019 at 11:36 pmHey Nate,
love your reviews and that you take the time to answer questions patiently and in such detail!
I’m 5’7”, 170lbs, size 8.5 boot, advanced rider, been riding for 27 years. Powder, trees, bumps, groomers, but tend to stay away from parks and big drops.
I’ve ridden the flight Attendant in 156 – length was great, but felt it was too soft.
I’m looking at getting the PYL but not sure on size and can’t demo where I am. Not sure if 156 or 159 is the way to go for me. Height would dictate 156, but weight points to 159. Any advice?
Thanks!
Nate says
January 25, 2019 at 11:25 amHi Dave
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tough call. On the one hand I would be leaning towards the 159 for a couple of reasons.
1. It’s the same effective edge as the 156 Flight Attendant, so the extra length you’re getting on it are beyond the contact points
2. I would only rate the PYL as slightly stiffer than the FA (7.5/10 vs 7/10). However, going with the 159 vs the 156 would add a bit more stiffness there. I rode the 159 for both – going with 159 vs the 156 should give a stiffer feel
But width-wise, with 8.5s, the 156 is more appealing, IMO. The FA in the 156 is narrower than the 156 PYL, and the 159 PYL is getting quite wide for 8.5s. I think the 156 PYL would work fine, but the 159 might be getting a bit wide. That’s sometimes a personal thing though. I usually don’t like boards that are too wide. Some people have less issue with it.
Personally (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boot), I would be going with 156 with your specs as I really liked the 159 with my specs, so I think that would be the comparable. Only thing is that it’s not likely to feel a lot stiffer than the FA, from my experience. And the PYL is something that you can ride a little longer so you certainly wouldn’t be wrong with the 159. My biggest concern would be the width.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Dave says
January 25, 2019 at 5:25 pmGreat, thanks Nate for the quick response!
I know, it’s a tough one!
For width reasons and for the fact that snow around here is on the softer side 156 would be more manageable. For those elusive powder days (we do get a few) it would be nice to have that extra float though.
I also looked at the Jones Flagship and would have gone with a 158 on that one.
What Boots and Binding would you recommend on the PYL? I gotta get all new stuff.
Thanks!
Dave
Nate says
January 26, 2019 at 10:16 amHi Dave
In terms of boots and bindings for the PYL, I would look at something around 7/10, 8/10 in terms of flex. Check out the following for some good 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
Hope this helps
Federico says
January 30, 2019 at 10:59 amHi Nate,
First of all thanks for your time and professionalism in answering all these questions! Really appreciate how much effort you put into all this! 🙂
I’m 5’11”, 143lbs, size 11.5 boots. Bindings 18 and 6/9/12 degrees. As you can see I’m a kind of a tall and thin rider who’s been riding for 15 years. Done 10 full seasons overall. Last season I rode 77 days for a total of 3500miles. Hard and fast. I’d say advanced level. Love powder, cliffs, trees, and flying down the slopes. Reached 132km/h last season straight lining a long black slope… I rode a 157 ultra mountain twin by Jones which I completely destroyed. Loved it but not great in powder…
I’m happy to sacrify my switch and my days in the park for extra stability and floating! Especially now that we’ve just had almost two metres of pow here in Andorra!!
Thinking of getting the PYL asap but not sure what size. I read the previous reviews and, as you said, with this board you can go a bit bigger. So I’m thinking to either get the 160wide (do you think it would be ideal for my boot size), or 162. Although I’m a kind of a light weight rider, I’m not totally sure if I should go that big…
Looking for boots too. I currently have a pair of TM-two by 32. They’re OK but feel like they’re too bulky and with that thick sole I kind of lose the feeling with the board…So looking for some stiff boots (that remain stiff!) and not that bulky…any suggestions? I looked into the Talon Focus by Nidecker and the Sequence by 32, but not totally sure how they would fit as where I am there is no shop that sells them… any suggestion please?
And bindings too. Again I looked into the Drive JJ by Now, and Apollo by Jones, but I would be very happy to consider other makes too.
Nate says
January 31, 2019 at 10:28 amHi Federico
Thanks for your message.
132km/hr, holy that’s fast! I haven’t clocked myself on a board, but pretty sure I ain’t riding that fast!
Boot-size wise, as per your other comment, yeah euro to US size translations are a bit all over the place, but for 32 a 43 translates to a Men’s US10.
For the PYL, I would usually say 156, just because of your weight, but since you’re used to riding a 157 UMT and since you like to ride seriously fast, and value stability and float the most, I would say to go 159 – which would also be a really good size for your boots, IMO. I think 162 would be getting a bit too long. The 159 has an effective edge of 118cm, which is already a little longer than the effective edge on the UMT (117cm), and then you get the rest of the extra length in the long nose that the PYL has (which helps to make it a really good board in powder. So yeah, I think 159 would be perfect size for you. Note that the PYL is a little softer flexing than the UMT. Not by heaps but just a little bit – although in saying that, the old UMT wasn’t as stiff as the new one, so you may not notice any difference there.
In terms of boots, going 32 again has it’s advantages – you know that the brand generally fits your feet (assuming your current boots fit you well). Not all boots within a brand fit the same but typically fit similar. However, on reputation (I don’t test gear long enough to be able to determine flex retention/durability) they don’t necessarily have the best flex retention. Not the worst either, but I would say there are better options in that respect. They also have decent reduced footprint, but not amazing, in my experience. Again that also varies depending on the model but usually it’s relatively consistent across a brand. But, depending on how old your boots are they may be less bulky now.
I don’t currently test Nidecker brand gear, so I’m not sure about the Talon Focus.
You could check out the following for some good stiff flexing options:
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
Or this:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
for some options around that 7/10 flex. But the first list above might be better if you want stiffer. Obviously not the only options, but gives you some options.
The K2 Thraxis and Adidas Acerra might be good in terms of flex retention (from reputation) and the Acerra, Verse and Driver X good in terms of being less bulky. Or at least shorter outersole. Also Ride Trident might be worth looking into as well. Like I say I couldn’t say too much in terms of flex retention, but hopefully that gives you some options.
In terms of bindings, check out the following for some good options to pair with the PYL. You could go anything from 7/10 to 9/10 in terms of flex for the PYL, IMO.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
I haven’t test NOW or Jones bindings yet but based on specs both the Now Drive and Jones Apollo would be suitable for the PYL, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Federico says
January 30, 2019 at 12:39 pmHi Nate,
I’m actually not 11.5 size boot, Sorry. I came across the wrong size chart for translating EU sizes to US. I looked at a few of them and I’m a bit puzzled about how different they all are. So I decided to give you my EU size which is 43.
Thanks and sorry about that.
Kyle says
February 7, 2019 at 2:42 pmHey Nate l, thanks for your great review. You’ve convinced me on buying this board. Would really be greatful if you could Advise me on whether I go 162 or 159. I’m 6ft, 80kg approx, size 11 us (10uk- riding Adidas tactical adv). Current board is a 157 NS proto. Plan on pairing some union falcors to the pyl. Thanks
Nate says
February 8, 2019 at 11:26 amHi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
You could definitely ride both sizes – pros and cons to each choice.
The 162 would be a better contrast to your current board, meaning that you cover more bases in your quiver. And the 162 PYL actually has a shorter effective edge than the PT2 157 (it’s got a rather long nose on it – great for powder!). That makes it something that you can certainly ride longer, and then you get that advantage of the extra length in the nose in powder.
The 159 would give you a bit more maneuverability for riding trees and be a little more agile at slower speeds. If I was to buy this board (which I probably will at some stage!) then I would go 159 if I was to get it as my daily driver (similar specs to you – 6ft, 83kg, but size 10 boots). Part of the reason for that is that I would still be using it for a bit of freestyle around the mountain and I like to ride trees. But I would go 162 if I was to use it as part of my quiver – as something for bombing and riding deeper powder. With slightly bigger feet, the 162 becomes even more appealing as a quiver compliment for you, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Franck says
February 17, 2019 at 9:47 amHi Nate,
Hope you are having a great season so far.
I would like to say thank you so much for all your reviews.
Though I should probably stop reading them as much as I have been for the past few months!
In particular, I have read more times than I should admit your review of the Yes Standarfd and PYL and was hoping you could help to settle on one. It would only be fair as you made me want both of them in the first place!
I apologies in advance for the long message.
I am 37y old, 1.8m, 83kgs, and wearing Adidas Accera in size 11, tough I may be able to switch to a 10 actually. The 11 still fit great as my huge calf as so tightly held than for now I do not really feel the boots being too long.
I am an advanced rider, been riding for 20, and can handle any steep/tight trees at speed, and trying to get back into just a bit of natural hits. I have to admit that after a few years away or little riding, and bad level of fitness, the fear factor has hit me.
My current set up is a Jones Hovercraft split 160 (2018), and a Jones Mind Expander 158 (2019) with Now Pilot bindings.
I do not have much experience with different snowboards or shapes. I had been riding a Burton Custom 1998 for 10 years, then a Ride Decade 2008 and a few rentals until 2018.
I would like to get a quiver complement to my Mind Expander as to spare my split when not required.
I only rode the Mind Expander in Japan powder so far so do not know how it will react on a more regular riding day in France.
I LOVE the Hovercraft and sometimes think I should get a solid version. It made me realize I think I like stiff board as I can charge harder in rougher terrains, like track crusted powder. I definitely enjoy riding the shorter tail as well.
But I should probably try something else, and could also do with something more agile for France resort riding.
I tend to ride with skiers but hit trees and resort “backcountry” as much as possible. I need something that can charge, is stiff/damp enough to spare my knees when the snow get rougher, good enough in trees (though I have enjoyed the Hovercraft which is not the nimblest of board), be agile enough for small side hits (where the Hovercraft is really not, though I suspect the split bindings connector makes the board even stiffer torsionally).
I have also decided that I could try to improve my switch riding a bit more often.
So the choice is between the Standard (156 or 159) or the PYL (160W or maybe 162?)
Here what I see as the pros for what I want to do:
Standard:
– Switch and switch landing easier
– A better fit for getting back into some kind of freestyle approach, which would be small natural jump initially, 180s..
– Due to width I could do shorter so even more playful. I understand the waist width still understates the width of the board due to the midbite.
– a fair bit cheaper.
PYL:
– Speed
– Dampness
– Maybe closer to the Hovercraft ride but maybe more playful and more torsional flex for side hits.
The last 2 seasons I started to ride directional boards and did not ride a twin at all, so it is hard to imagine how much I would miss the directional part compare to what I would gain with the twin.
I like to charge but I imagine the Standard would still be quite good.
I would like to spend more time playing around but my Mind Expander may be good enough here. Again I have not used it yet in regular conditions.
All in all, the PYL would maybe be a bit more complementary in my quiver but would the Standard makes more sense as my daily driver?
I know this is really subjective but I would be glad to hear your opinion. As you have ridden so many boards I am hoping you can help clearing the fog in my head.
Another question would be the bindings. My options (in order of cheapness) are:
– Keep the Now Pilots for both boards
– K2 Lien AT. Maybe for the Mind Expander and Pilot for the Yes?
– Burton Genesis X (I have the feeling they would be better suited than the regular Genesis)
– I was also looking at the Union Falcor but I think I enjoy highback rotation plus Union spare parts would be harder to get.
Again, all apologies for the wall of text.
Thanks for you help.
All the best,
Franck
Nate says
February 18, 2019 at 11:42 amHi Franck
Thanks for your message.
You’ve certainly narrowed down a lot of the pros and cons well between the two – do you want a job?! 😉
It’s definitely a close call, given what you’re describing, but I would be leaning towards the PYL, for a few reasons.
It would be a slightly better compliment to the Mind Expander, IMO (but note that I haven’t ridden the Mind Expander yet, so this is based on specs). Though this is close as well. The Standard would compliment the Mind Expander well too – in the sense that it has the almost twin shape vs the tapered shape of the Mind Expander. For riding and landing switch, this would be a big difference. It also has the other factors that the PYL has in terms of camber profile, etc. and would still be a compliment. The PYL, with that hybird camber profile (more camber than rocker vs the all-rocker profile of the Mind Expander), being a little stiffer and whilst it does have a slightly tapered shape, it’s no where near as tapered. Overall both should give you more in terms of carving and speed vs the Mind Expander, but more so the PYL.
The PYL is also more agile in trees than I expected, so I think you would notice an improvement there vs the Hovercraft, in terms of maneuverability in that sense. Also surprisingly good for side hits I found. I don’t usually like stiffer boards for sidehits, but the PYL was an exception. Still not as much as the Standard for that, but pretty good.
Size-wise, for your specs, I would say the 160W is probably the best bet. However, you might squeeze onto the 159 width-wise, with your boots. Certainly if you changed to 10s or 10.5s, then going 159 would be your best bet. And if you did get on the 159, that would give you even more agility for trees and side hits. Since you have Adidas boots, you might even squeeze onto the 159 with your 11s, but it would be risking it. I was good with 10s, and would have been comfortable with 10.5s, but not sure about 11s (my boots are almost as low profile as Adidas).
If you were to go Standard I would almost go 156. It’s still going to be wide enough and with the 159 being almost too wide, I think sizing down to 156 wouldn’t be a bad idea. And then it would be more of a compliment to the Mind Expander, in the sense of being more freestyle focused. But you would loose a little in terms of stability at speed and for carving big wide arcs.
I think for you the PYL would make a good daily driver, and be a good contrast to the Mind Expander. The biggest downsides to going with that choice is for riding and landing switch (though it is certainly doable just not ideal) and for side hits, when compared to the Standard – but still decent in that area.
For bindings, I haven’t ridden the NOW Pilot but if the flex rating of 7/10 is accurate, then I think you would be fine using that on the Standard or PYL. If in reality they’re a little softer than that, then something like the Genesis X or Falcor would be a better option for the PYL. For the Standard you’d probably still be fine on the Pilots, even if they’re a more medium flex. K2 Lien AT, as well would work well for the Standard, and certainly be doable for the PYL. If the Pilot is in reality 7/10 flex, then yeah, I would probably put the Lien AT on the Mind Expander and the Pilot on the PYL.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Franck says
February 28, 2019 at 2:00 pmHi Nate,
All my apologies for the late reply.
I think I agree with your assessment. The PYL will be a better choice to compliment the Mind Expander and probably even as a daily driver for me.
I guess my problem is that I actually want both!
How would you compare its stiffness with the Hovercraft?
There is not many left and no real bargain at the moment so I may just wait the next year model.
They seem to rate the 2020 model stiffer than the 2019. From experience do you think that is just on paper?
Also, I think I enjoy wider boards, but do you think if I downsized my shoes I would feel a big difference going with the 159 in term of control for side hits?
Another board I may be able to get a deal on, is the Niche Story. Am I right to think it falls in between the 2 Yes boards in term of ride?
Bindings wise, I think I’ll try my Pilots first and then take a decision.
Thanks a lot for your help,
All the best,
Franck
Nate says
March 1, 2019 at 10:01 amHi Franck
In terms of the flex for the 2020 model, this is just on paper, as far as I know (but don’t quote me on that). It doesn’t look like there have been any changes made to the board. The flex was always underrated for the PYL, IMO. And overrated for the Standard (they had both rated the same previously). By my feel I got 6/10 flex out of the Standard and 7.5/10 on the PYL.
Vs the Hovercraft, flex-wise, I’m not entirely sure there. I haven’t ridden the Hovercraft – but based on what others say and on the flex rating, I imagine they have a pretty similar flex – perhaps with the PYL being a touch stiffer.
If you know that you enjoy wider boards, then I think I would stick with the 160W. You would get a bit more maneuverability out of the 159 for sure, but you also sacrifice a little in terms of landing platform and float in powder. Usually I would say go regular width, if you can get on it without any risk of drag, but if you know that you prefer a little wider, then I would stick with that 160W.
Yeah in some ways the Niche Story is in between the Standard and PYL, but closer to the Standard. It’s also different to both in a few ways – one being that it’s hybrid rocker (rocker between the feet and camber under the feet and towards tip and tail). Very similar flex-wise to the Standard, but a little more directional.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Ole says
February 26, 2019 at 3:40 amHi Nate!
And thank you for sharing your insight, highly appreciated. I`m considering PYL to compliment my other board which is The Greats 2019 159. I`d like an all mountain board good for carving, speed and powder whenever the conditions allow it, then use the Greats whenever the resort is too busy or I am in a more playful mood. I`d like to be able to experiment with eurocarves, but I value speed and long lines also.. I`m
6 feet 2 inches (188 cm)
200 lbs (90 kg)
10 US size (43 EU) ThirtyTwo double lashed boa
Which lenght do you think would suit me best? I`m considering 160W, 162 or 165. I consider Wide because of the eurocarve aspect, or do you think I could make it on 162 or 165? My stance on the Greats is now +15/-15, but I would probably have a more directional stance on a freeride board (maybe +21/+3), which makes my backfoot more subject to toedrag.
All the best from Norway!
Nate says
February 26, 2019 at 3:11 pmHi Ole
Thanks for your message.
I like the 165 for you for the PYL. I think that length suits your specs the best, and would be the best compliment to the Greats 159 for your quiver.
Width-wise, I think it should be fine for 10s, even with a straight back binding angle and wanting to Eurocarve. You certainly won’t have the width you have on your 2019 159 Greats but I imagine it would be OK, with no guarantees, of course.
Hope this helps with your decision
Ole says
February 27, 2019 at 12:24 amThanks!
If your were to recommend the best lenght for me on the Greats, just based on my weight, height and boot size, would you say 156 or 159? I know the recommended weight scheme puts me on a 159, but still I wonder if I could have ridden a 156.
I`m really happy with the 159, it makes it more of an all mountain board which was my intention, but on a beautiful morning in waist-high powder I got the idea of getting a second one for those conditions, which I also can use for speed and carving on groomers. So I can`t help to wonder, now that I want a second more of a freeride board, if I could have gone in a more freestyle direction on the Greats.
Also, can you think of some other boards that might fill my needs?
Nate says
February 27, 2019 at 2:32 pmHi Ole
For your specs, I think the 159 was the way to go for the Greats. I think you could get away with riding the 156 if you were to use it solely as a freestyle board. But overall I think 159 is the better call – especially as your only board.
Some other freeride options:
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
You could go shorter than 165 on a lot of those options – the PYL is one that you can ride a little longer. You could also do 162 on the PYL, if you don’t like the sound of going 165 – but that’s probably the best size for you, IMO, as a compliment to the 159 Greats.
Hope this helps
Ole says
March 21, 2019 at 12:09 pmHi,
I finally pulled the trigger on a 165 PYL on a 31 % discount :-D!
Could you list a couple of bindings from the top of your head that would match PYL that I can start doing research on?
Thanx in advance!
Nate says
March 22, 2019 at 10:49 amHi Ole
Thanks for the update – and awesome that you were able to pick up the PYL on a good deal.
Check out the following for some great binding matches. The first list if you still want your bindings to be a little forgiving, and the second list if you want to get the most response possible.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Chris says
March 20, 2019 at 7:14 pmHey Nate great review! Would really appreciate your recommendation as to board size.
I’m 5’8, 157lbs, and wear a size 9us. Advanced-expert level primarily riding off piste.
Thanks!
Nate says
March 21, 2019 at 1:07 pmHi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Based on your specs and what you’re describing, I would say that the 156 would be the best size for you, and would be a really good size for you for this board. If you’re used to riding anything significantly longer, then you could certainly consider the 159, but just based on what you’ve described I would definitely go 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Taylor says
April 21, 2019 at 12:45 pmHey Nate,
I’m a female rider (5’10”, 150lbs). I’ve been addicted to the women’s Flagship for the past 4 seasons. Being a career dirtbag, I find myself all over the west side of North America, preferably in aggressive freeride terrain. This year, I am updating my split to a Jones Flag or Solution, and am additionally snagging another “daily driver” as my last Flagship has seen its last send. Question is: between the Flagship and the Pick Your Line, what would you recommend? I am usually on steep and deep, but thoroughly enjoy bombing groomers (I love the speed of the Flag) and tight tree runs. I haven’t had too many issues with the Flag on icy terrain, but am curious as to the difference with the PYL’s underbite. Last question: is there a similar women’s board to the PYL? My current split is a male’s Solomon, and it’s biggest vice is how aggressive you need to initiate the turns, and the general heaviness of the board; another reason why I love the women’s Flag (it’s light, stable, and agile feel).
Nate says
April 22, 2019 at 2:34 pmHi Taylor
Thanks for your message.
One thing that might make your men’s Salomon feel heavy to turn could be the width. And that might be one good reason to go with the Women’s Flagship again. Length is also important in that respect. The Pick Your Line will be wider than the Women’s Flagship (I’m guessing you’re looking at the 156 PYL). Either way it’s wider than even the longest women’s flagship.
But if you could let me know your boot size, as well as the size of your current women’s Flaghip and the size and model of your Salomon split board. That will make it easier to make a better recommendation.
As far as the PYL in icy conditions is concerned, I found it a little better than the Flagship, but I did find the Flagship good in those conditions, just not quite as good. I found the PYL (2019) to be a little better in trees than the Flagship (2019). But if you were looking at the 2020 Flagship – which has had some relatively significant changes – that’s considerably improved in the trees, IMO. And matches or maybe betters the PYL now, in that sense.
Overall, the PYL is my favorite freeride board, but the Flagship isn’t far behind, so there’s not really a bad choice between them, IMO. So, what you can get in the most suitable size for you would be your best bet, IMO.
There’s not a women’s equivalent YES PYL. The closest would be the YES Hel Yes. Which might be worth looking at – but it’s certainly not the same as the PYL.
But yeah, if you can let me know that extra info, I’ll let you know what I think is likely the best option, based on the best size.
Hope this helps