snowboarding profiles logo mountain

Snowboarding Profiles

  • SNOWBOARDS
    • Top Snowboard Picks 2024-2025
    • Snowboard Reviews
    • Snowboard Buying Guide
    • Snowboard Length Sizing
    • Snowboard Width Sizing
    • For Beginners
    • Setup/Maintenance
  • BINDINGS
    • Top Bindings Picks 2024-2025
    • Binding Reviews
    • Binding Buying Guides
    • Binding Sizing
    • Binding and Board Compatbility
    • For Beginners
    • Bindings Setup
  • SNOWBOARD BOOTS
    • Top Boots Picks 2024-2025
    • Boot Reviews
    • Boot Buying Guides
    • Sizing and Fit
    • Boot Fit by Brand
    • For Beginners
    • More
  • OUTERWEAR
    • Top Jacket Picks
    • Top Pants Picks
    • Jacket Buying Guide
    • Pants Buying Guide
    • Goggles Buying Guide
    • Helmet Buying Guide
    • Base Layers Buying Guide
    • More
  • About
    • About SP
    • Shop Merch

YES PYL (Pick Your Line) Review

Last Updated: October 18, 2024 by Nate

YES Pick Your Line 2024-2025 Snowboard Review

The YES Pick Your Line (PYL) has an uncanny ability to perform well at both fast and slow speeds. And can handle and excel being ridden aggressively, yet feel forgiving enough to still ride more slowly/casually. 

And that's definitely not to say that it's just a good middle ground between those things. At speed and, particularly, on a carve and in powder, it's up there, but still achieves good slow speed agility and ease of turns. 

In this review, I will take a look at the PYL as a freeride snowboard.

As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the PYL a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other freeride snowboards.

Overall Rating

Board: YES Pick Your Line 2025

Price: $499

Style: Freeride/Aggressive All-Mountain

Flex Rating: Mid-Stiff (7/10)

Flex Feel on Snow: Mid-Stiff (7/10)

Rating Score: 90.2/100

Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards

Of the 35 current model freeride snowboards that we tested:

  • The average score was 84.9/100
  • The highest score was 91.3/100
  • The lowest score was 79.3/100
  • The average price was $663
  • WordPress Responsive Table

    ❄️ The PYL ranked 3rd out of 35


    Overview of the PYL’ Specs

    Check out the tables for the PYL’s specs and available sizes.

    STYLE:

    FREERIDE

    PRICE: 

    $499 - BUYING OPTIONS

    $499 - BUYING OPTIONS

    Ability Level: 

    Ability Level high intermediate to expert

    flex:

    Snowboard Flex 7

    feel:

    snowboard feel stable

    DAMPNESS:

    Chattery Damp Bar-07

    SMOOTH /SNAPPY: 

    Smooth Snappy Bar 5

    Playful /aggressive:

    Playful Aggressive Bar 6

    Edge-hold:

    Edge hold Icy Snow

    camber profile:

    Directional Hybrid Camber

    DIRECTIONAL HYBRID CAMBER

    DIRECTIONAL YBRID Camber - Yes's "CamRock 1-4-2" 

    SHAPE: 

    Tapered Directional

    setback stance:

    Setback 10mm (0.4")

    BASE: 

    Sintered

    weight:

    Felt normal

    Sizing

    LENGTH (cm) 

    Waist Width (mm)

    Rec Rider Weight (lb)

    Rec Rider Weight (kg)

    156

    250

    130-180

    59-82

    159

    253

    140-190

    64-86

    160W

    260

    160-210

    73-95

    162

    255

    160-210

    73-95

    164W

    265

    170-220+

    77-100+

    165

    258

    170-220+

    77-100+

    Who is the PYL Most Suited To?

    The PYL is best suited to a number of different riders. 

    It can make a great one-board quiver for those who spend a good amount of their time riding at higher speeds, carving and in powder, but who also wants a good amount of forgiveness to go along with that. The one-board quiver candidate for this board probably isn't in the park much, but might like to hit the ocassional jump, side-hit or cliff-huck. 

    Or it can be a great addition to a quiver. In a two board quiver it would be great paired with a freestyle/park board or an all-mountain-freestyle board. And could form a multi-board quiver too, being the daily driver or the go-to for powder-days and icy days. 

    While it is relatively easy to turn for how aggressive it can ride, it's still not for beginners and for the most part, I would say you'd want to be at least solid intermediate for this board. 


    PYL DetailS

    YES Pick Your Line Snowboard Test 2025

    O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the PYL is capable of.

    Demo Info

    Board: YES Pick Your Line (PYL) 2025, 159cm (253mm waist width)

    Date: March 24, 2024

    TESTING Conditions:

    Overhead: Not a cloud in the sky!

    Visibility: 100%

    °C °C +wind chill °F °F rounded °F +wind chill °F WC rounded °C | °F ° +wind chill
    Morning Temp: 2 2 35.6 36 35.6 36 2°C | 36°F 2°C | 36°F
    Afternoon Temp: 4 3 39.2 39 37.4 37 4°C | 39°F 3°C | 37°F
    cm inch in rounded cm inch
    24 hr snowfall: 0 0 0 0cm 0”
    48 hr snowfall: 0 0 0 0cm 0”
    7 day snowfall: 0 0 0 0cm 0”
    kph mph mph rounded kph mph
    Morning Wind: 0 0 0 0kph 0mph
    Afternoon Wind: 5 3.1075 3 5kph 3mph
    WordPress Responsive Table

    On groomer: Started out hard with some icy patches. Got progressively softer throughout the day, which was unsurprising in the warm temperatures and sunshine. Was getting slushy mushy by the afternoon. 

    Off groomer: Hard/crunchy to start and softened up a little, but not as much as groomers. 

    Set Up

    Bindings angles: +15/-15
    mm in mm in
    Stance Width: 570 22.4409 22.44 570mm 22.44”
    Stance Setback: 10 0.3937 0.4 10mm 0.4”
    Width at Front Insert: 263 10.3543 10.4 263mm 10.4”
    Width at Back Insert: 261 10.2756 10.3 261mm 10.3”
    feet inches cm cm rounded
    Rider Height 6 0 183 6`0” 183cm
    pounds 81.6327 0
    Rider Weight 180 0 82 180lbs 82kgs
    Rider Boot Size: US9.5 (Adidas Response ADV)
    Bindings Used: Burton Malavita, size M
    grams pounds ounces lbs rounded oz rounded grams lbs & ozs
    Board Weight 3020 6.6578 0.6578 6 11 3020g/cm 6lbs 11ozs 10.5256
    Weight per CM 18.99 0.0419 0.0419 0 0.67 18.99g/cm 0.67ozs/cm 0.6698
    Average Weight per cm 18.64 0.0411 0.0411 0 0.66 18.64g/cm* 0.66ozs/cm 0.6575
    WordPress Responsive Table

    *based on a sample size of 300+ models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 & 2025 models. The PYL was a little heavier than normal on the scales but felt normal on snow. 

    Powder

    Nothing to test in on the day but from past experience with earlier models of this board and based on specs, it's a board that will be really good when the pow arrives. 

    While it only has a small amount of taper (around 6mm) and a small reference stance setback, it has a really big nose, with a huge upturn of rocker in the nose. In contrast the tail is not only narrower and shorter, but it also has very subtle rocker.

    The 1-4-2 rocker-camber-rocker profile doesn't really represent the contrast in rocker in the tail and nose that you can see and feel with the board. I suspect this is because the rocker in the nose starts so much earlier - and just keeps rising.

    Carving

    This thing is so darn fun on a carve. And it's one of those boards that manages to be just as good for all types of carves. Fast, slow and various radiuses (OK so I probably should have used the term radii - but, I don't why it does, but radii just sounds so pretentious - and my spell check didn't have any issues with radiuses, so I think it's good to go!).

    It probably has it's limits in terms of super high speeds, but I couldn't find the limit on it and it's a rare breed that can carve well at high speed but still be good on a lower speed carve. 

    Turning

    Ease of Turning/Slashing: And for how well it rides at speed and carves, it's actually pretty easy to turn and slash as well. Another combination that I've found to be quite rare in snowboards. It's not ultra easy, but remarkably easy, given it's other qualities. 

    Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, the combination of the PYL's slow speed and fast speed qualities are pretty remarkable - the way it's able to do both so well. It's not among the top tier of edge-to-edge quickness at slow speeds, but it is top tier in terms of how good it is at slow speeds vs fast speeds.  

    Catchiness: Really un-catchy, even when ridden slow. Not fully catch free but for how well it rides at speed and particularly for how well it carves, it's remarkably low in catchiness. 

    Speed

    I found and have always found the PYL to be nice and stable at speed and relatively chatter free. I did experience some chatter, but nothing crazy. The glide isn't great, so you don't get that acceleration and if you don't pick up enough speed when approaching a flat area or uphill, it can be a struggle to get through. 

    But in terms of stability at speed, it feels really good. 

    Uneven Terrain

    Crud/Chunder: Not ultra damp, but damp enough, and nice and stable going through or over messy snow. Some chatter, but it's not bone-shaking. 

    Trees/Bumps: Really decent edge-to-edge quickness and in powder, it goes really well in trees too.

    Jumps

    Really decent for jumps. Not ultra poppy but some pop there.  But otherwise a really nice balance between forgiveness and stability. 

    Pop: Not super easy access but not hard to extract either. Total pop isn't bad, but not super poppy overall either. 

    Approach: Great balance of stability and adjustability leaning more to stability side.

    Landing: Nice solid landing platform and decently forgiving too, for when you don't quite get the landing stomped. While it's not great for landing tail heavy, it's not too bad either - there's some tail there to support you, if you land leaning back a bit too far. 

    Side-hits: It wouldn't be my go-to for side-hits, but still really decent, especially for a freeride board. 

    Small jumps/Big jumps: Really all sizes work well on this board. Because of it's stability, I would go with big jumps as it's best jumping quality, but really it's good for all sizes of jumps. 

    Switch

    Was pretty forgiving on transitions to/from switch and felt quite easy to ride switch on. And while it does look/feel a little odd having that big 'ol nice on your back foot, it's not super directional feeling when not in powder, if you can put that look/feeling out of your head. 

    Spins

    Pretty good for a directional board. Not super light swing-weight and takes some effort but not bad. Definitely doesn't over spin and not too bad at finishing a spin on the ground when you haven't quite rotated enough.

    And setting up and landing switch is doable too for 1s, 5s etc. 

    Jibbing

    Felt relatively confident with this board taking it on jibs, which I don't necessarily with all freeride boards. Still certainly far from ideal for it. 

    Butters

    It takes some effort to press the nose and tail, as you'd expect at it's flex. But it's nothing that's oppressively stiff in its nose/tail. And when you can get that force on there, it locks in nicely. 

    The nose and tail do feel quite different to press though, naturally.


    Score Breakdown and Final Verdict

    Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.

    Factor Rating (/5) weighting total score weighted rounded score
    Weighted
    Powder 4.5 25 22.5 22.5/25
    Speed 4 20 16 16/20
    Carving 4.5 15 13.5 13.5/15
    Turns 4 10 8 8/10
    Crud 4 10 8 8/10
    Trees 4 10 8 8/10
    Jumps 4 5 4 4/5
    Switch 3 5 3 3/5
    TOTAL (after normalizing):92 90.2174 90.2 90.2/100
    WordPress Responsive Table

    The Pick Your Line is a great board, well before you look at the price. And then when you look at the price you realize just how good the value-for-money is for this board! Versus boards in this category and with similar performance, it's well below the average price - but well above the average performance. 

    But even taking that out of the conversation, it's a board that impresses with its ability to achieve some rare combinations of slow/fast, aggressive-yet-forgiving riding qualities.

    And the fact that performs so well in both icy conditions and powder, makes this board suitable for a good variety of terrain types and weather conditions. 


    More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online

    To learn more about the PYL, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below

    To learn more about the PYL, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below
    ℹ We receive a small commission if you order through the links below - no extra cost to you, of course and we really appreaciate the support. More info



    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at evo.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at blauerboardshop.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at curated.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at backcountry.com
    WordPress Responsive Table

    >>YES Pick Your Line 2024 at prfo.com
    WordPress Responsive Table

    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at blue-tomato.com
    WordPress Responsive Table


    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at evo.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at blauerboardshop.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at curated.com
    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at backcountry.com
    WordPress Responsive Table


    >>YES Pick Your Line 2024 at prfo.com
    WordPress Responsive Table


    >>YES Pick Your Line 2025 at blue-tomato.com
    WordPress Responsive Table
    YES Pick Your Line 2025

    To check out some other freeride snowboard options, or to see how the PYL compares to others, check out our top rated freeride snowboards by clicking the button below.

    Our Top Rated Men's Freeride Snowboards

    >>Past seasons Pick Your Line (PYL) review archives

    Share 0
    Post 0
    Pin 0

    Filed Under: 2017 Snowboard Reviews, 2018 Snowboard Reviews, 2019 Snowboard Reviews, 2020 Snowboard Reviews, 2021 Snowboard Reviews, 2022 Snowboard Reviews, 2023 Snowboard Reviews, 2024 Snowboard Reviews, 2025 Snowboard Reviews, Current Model, Men's Freeride Snowboard Reviews, YES Tagged With: YES Pick Your Line 2023-2024, YES Pick Your Line 2024-2025, yes pick your line snowboard, YES PYL Review

    About Nate

    Nate is passionate about and loves learning new things everyday about snowboarding, particularly the technical aspects of snowboarding gear. That, and becoming a better rider and just enjoying and getting the most out of life.

    Comments

    1. Alex says

      April 3, 2025 at 8:36 am

      Hi Nate,

      Following your other reviews and the comment section I picked up a Yes Greats Uninc 156, Union Falcors and a pair of ThirtyTwo TM-2s. Appreciate all the work you’re doing here!

      I am now looking to get a board that’s better suited for trees, powder and some in-piste carving. Trying to pick between 2025 Yes PYL 160W, 164W or, a cheaper option, 2024 165. I feel like the rear underfoot width of the 165 is just not enough for me.

      My stats are
      – 6’1
      – 195 lbs
      – US size 11 boots
      – 15/-15 usually, but for the PYL planning to go 18/-3(-6)

      Cheers!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 9, 2025 at 2:03 pm

        Hi Alex, thanks for your message.

        Yeah, I would also be a bit weary of the width of the 165 being enough for your back foot, particularly if you go to a -3 or -6 for the back foot. While the 160W only gives you a couple of mm more, that 270mm mark for that back insert is getting up to what I’d consider the minimum for 11s. Unless you have really low profile boots. Even though it’s only 2mm, you have to draw the line somewhere and I would feel more confident, if I was you, on the 160W width-wise. Length-wise, I also think it’s the better size for you than the 165 or 164W, particularly as you’re looking to ride trees a fair bit, by the sounds of it.

        tldr; I’d go 160W if it was me

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Alex says

          April 28, 2025 at 1:33 pm

          Ordered 160w, can’t wait to try it out. Thank you for the advice Nate!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            May 3, 2025 at 2:43 pm

            You’re very welcome Alex. Hope it treats you well, once you’ve had a chance to get it out no snow.

            Reply
    2. Michael says

      February 22, 2025 at 12:25 pm

      … Nate, sorry for the 3 putt here. When you comment on the boards I noted please let me know on edge hold. East coast can have some real icy conditions to navigate.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 25, 2025 at 4:53 pm

        Hi Michael, thanks for your message.

        Firstly, both the PYL and Banked Country should give you good edge hold in icy conditions, based on my experience, so you should be good there. The Frontier and Dynamo, a little below in terms of icy edge-hold, in my experience, but still good.

        More similarities than differences for the PYL vs Banked Country. The main differences, IMO, are:

        – The PYL is a little damper

        – The BC is a little snappier

        – The PYL is a little better for powder

        The Dynamo and Frontier are a little softer flexing, not as good for carving and not as stable at speed. Typically that would mean more slow speed agility, but in this case the BC and PYL are both pretty agile at slower speeds, in my experience.

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
    3. Michael Langer says

      February 21, 2025 at 2:10 pm

      Hey Nate – I’m sure you are busy and dropped a question a week ago but it never showed up so may not have done properly. Thanks for all you do. I’m trying to decide between a Gnu Banked Country and a Yes PYL. Both seem to be in the same genre but my question is why would you point someone at one or the other? What is one better at than the other and vice versa? Also considering the Jones Frontier and maybe the Lib Tech Dynamo. Curious to get your thoughts on the comparison as I really appreciate your perspective. I live on the east coast and do about half my riding here and half out west (Utah, CO, Montana). Get about 20 days per year. Been boarding for over 20 years. Thank you again!

      Reply
    4. Marek says

      January 29, 2025 at 5:32 am

      Hi Nate, since your advice has always helped me decide, I’m here again. I’m hesitating between NS Valhalla (164)[since it’s not here yet] / Yes Pyl (165). I would like to know your opinion.
      I’m looking for medium to more stiff Bord, prefer fast Edge to Edge, stability at high speeds, grip icy snow, I always ride off-piste when conditions allow.(almost not at all this season)
      US11, 85kg, 185cm. Angle 18/21 -3/6
      Advance Rider

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 4, 2025 at 11:49 am

        Hi Marek, good to hear from you again.

        It’s a close call. And there isn’t a bad decision you can make between them, IMO. I really liked both boards. In terms of fast edge-to-edge, powder and stability at high speeds, they’re pretty even – I’d say the Valhalla a touch better when it comes to stability at high speeds, but it’s a very close thing. And then the PYL a little better when it comes to grip in icy snow. Outside of that, there’s not a lot to choose between them. For the PYL I would say the 160W and for Valhalla 160. Wouldn’t say either is a better size than the other for you, so that’s not really a good tie-breaker either. Both pretty similar widths at those lengths too (despite one being called wide and the other not). But the PYL 160W a touch wider at inserts and tip/tail and overall. If you like to ride longer than that, the next options are 164W and 164, so that doesn’t really tell them apart either.

        Hope this somewhat helps with your decision

        Reply
    5. George says

      December 4, 2024 at 6:32 am

      Hi Nate,

      Great reviews, I have been following you for the past 5+ years and always check with your reviews before a buy. Same with my Jones Mountain Twin (3 year ago).

      Back then I was between the MT, Yes Standard and the Capita Mercury and went for the MT.

      No I sold my previous board and Im between the Yes Standard and the Yes PYL. I was also looking at the Capita Spring Break.

      Generally, as a snowboarder I like to go off-piste & explore, and in-piste for some hard carving (trying to push carving to the limits before getting washed out). I also enjoy side-hits and natural features. Ocassionally, I would get in the park for some small/mid jumps. I do like speed but was not feeling super stable with the MT (over 70 klm – could also be my technique, but I felt sometimes it could catch an edge). Also, I felt that the MT would skid a bit too much (also could be my technique).

      I did enjoy the Mountain Twin, but Im just looking for something different that would surprise me in a positive manner. By some reviews I’ve seen the PYL is a bit tricky to find the best binding settings (has a more wide stance), but on the other hand it seems its a bit more aggressive, in which I do think I could enjoy – harder carving and more speed with side hits.

      On the other hand, I’ve heard great reviews on the Standard, but Im not sure if this would be so diffierent than what the MT offered. I was also considering the Yes Greats as well (in addition to the Spring Break).

      What would your idea be in this case? Also, is there a major difference between last years model?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 10, 2024 at 3:16 pm

        Hi George, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – pretty hectic here right now!)

        For what you’re describing, I would go PYL for sure, I think it would suit your riding style really well. The Standard is too similar to MT, IMO. It’s certainly not the same, but from what you’re describing the PYL is a better option, IMO. The Standard Uninc (there’s a hybrid rocker (regular standard) and a trad camber (standard uninc) version) would give you that better stability at speed and carving, so that could definitely be an option. The PYL is better for off piste, IMO, but the Standard Uninc would give you everything else you want, IMO.

        The Greats would give you better carving than the MT, in my experience – and maybe a little more stable at speed. It’s good off piste, when there’s no powder, but when there is powder, it isn’t great. I think this would work for most of what you want, but the PYL and Standard Uninc still better fit what you want, IMO.

        The Spring Break Resort Twin is a more playful board, in my experience and wouldn’t suit what you want, IMO. The Spring Break Powder Twin, would be a little more suitable, particularly for off-piste stuff, and it’s not as playful and better for speed and carving than the Resort Twin, in my experience. But not as good an option as the PYL and Standard Uninc, IMO in this case, for what you’re looking for.

        tldr; I’d go PYL with the Standard Uninc being the second choice. The 2025 PYL is identical to the 2024 model (bar the graphic) as far as I know.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • George says

          December 11, 2024 at 1:20 am

          Hi Nate,

          Thanks for your reply, really helpful. I hadn’t really checked the Standar Uninc, however, was only considering the PYL Uninc ( most reviewers just state its even more fun (maybe a bit less still than the normal PYL) and a bit better carving/speed capabilities. At the moment I was actually almost going to go for that.

          From some previous comments, I understood that you have not tested the PYL Uninc yet. Not sure if you have any opinion between the PYL & PYL Uninc.

          Thanks once again, Nate. Appreciate the time you put into all these reviews, & replies. If time is on your side, I think all of us in here would be grateful for a cool YouTube review channel, with your rating system. Short 5 min vids with your opinion! Thanks once again!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 14, 2024 at 3:50 pm

            Hi George

            I got a chance to test the PYL Uninc last winter (review on its way, just really behind right now). It was a really good board and I would agree it’s better at high speeds. And it’s better at smashing through cruddy conditions. I actually overall prefer the PYL (regular) for carving. The PYL Uninc does have it over the regular PYL for really high speed carves, but for carving at anything but all-out speeds, I preferred the PYL personally. The PYL Uninc also probably a touch more suited to powder. But would take the PYL over the Uninc for sidehits, jumps, and for tighter turns at slower speeds, trees, that kind of thing. So overall, I feel the regular PYL is a more well-rounded ride, but if you want to optimize for faster riding and crushing crud (and don’t get me wrong the PYL Uninc is still real nice to carve even at more moderate speeds, but I just didn’t like it as much as the regular PYL), then the Uninc is definitely worth considering.

            We actually have a channel – https://www.youtube.com/@snowboardingprofiles – but has been pretty slow to get it going. Haven’t been able to dedicate enough time to it so far. But one of the reasons I’m so far behind this year is because I’m spending more time trying to develop this. The videos are more of a supplement to the written reviews, rather than being stand alone reviews themselves, but just something to visually show the boards in action from when we’re testing them – and giving a brief overview of their performance, through graphics etc, so definitely not the kind of detail that the reviews provide but more of a brief overview and to give a bit of a visual look at them. I have a found an editor who is helping me out now (it was just taking me too long to edit them to get a reasonable number of them done), so should hopefully be getting more of these out and hopefully a good number of them soon. I have footage for most of the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 gear we tested, but getting all that edited has been the hold up. I’ve been out a few times this season and have gotten an additional camera (and might get one more still) and have been playing around with different angles, so the 2025-2026 gear videos should show a lot more and from different angles. Still a work in progress but slowly developing how I want them to look/what they show.

            Reply
    6. Bernardo says

      November 25, 2024 at 6:22 am

      Hi there Nate!
      As usual, loved the reviews you’ve been putting out!
      In April I asked for your advice on this board but unfortunately I wasn’t able to get my hands on a board (2024 version).
      This year I’m doing things earlier.

      My question is: now that you have another review, do you think it still fits my specs? Is this years version the top board? what about the Uninc or other options?

      I will paste my previous message so that it is easier for you to relate (sorry if it turns out big)

      Thanks again! Cheers!

      “Hi Nate!

      So I’m an intermediate / advanced rider (do mostly reds and black runs), who loves pistes and off pistes, and some powder (when I find it), but no freestyle or park.

      Oh and I’m a surfer too, during the summer.

      Where I snowboard I do mostly groomers, but I find myself trying to do more off pistes these last days. I love the challenge of finding new snow. And love slashing side banks, just like in surf hitting the lip of the wave, and have been hitting small jumps and sidekicks. That’s why I use 0º – posi stance, or posi-posi.

      So I guess I’m more of a “turner” than a freestyler. On groomers I try to do perfect turns, carves, and try to vary from short quick turns to long carves, so I don’t like boards that are too big or wide, because It affects my ability to turn fast (I have tried the Ride Maniac 160 and I felt it was too much, a bit slower going from edge to edge).

      I’m inclined for the all-mountain boards, but I have doubts.
      Then I saw your review on PYL and PYL Uninc, and I think the specs are spot on.
      What do you say?
      I thought about the Jones Frontier also, and the Yes Standard Uninc.

      What about size? I’m a US 8 boot, 177cm height and 68Kg.

      I want to find a board that suits best for a one board quiver, because I snowboard like 2-3 weeks per year (too far from the resorts unfortunately).

      Because I’m keen on pistes and off pistes, and do mostly turns and not freestyle, these are the specs I look for in reviews.
      And I value also a board that can make me progress. I don’t want to overvalue my skills, but I also don’t want to have a board that is too “begginerish” and then find it getting shorter on skill progression, and can’t be able to deal with black runs and steeper terrain, because I do love the challenge of trying to make turns on blacks and simply beat a steep wall.

      Can you help me?”

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 28, 2024 at 1:06 pm

        Hi Bernardo, good to hear from you again.

        I would still go PYL for you. The Uninc is stiffer and not as easy to ride the way you want to ride, in my experience. I think the PYL would suit your needs really well and I can’t see it holding you back in terms of progression either. It’s far from a beginnerish board. Assuming your specs haven’t significantly changed, the 156 is still the best bet, IMO. And the Uninc still going to be too big in it’s smallest size, IMO. But I think the PYL would suit you better anyway, so that’s no biggie.

        Reply
        • Bernardo says

          December 6, 2024 at 6:14 am

          Hey Nate!
          So I followed your advice and got the PYL 156, with Union Atlas.
          Can’t wait to put it on snow!!
          Hope it turns out good as you (and I, I may add) expected!
          Thank you so much for your work and time!
          Cheers!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 9, 2024 at 4:17 pm

            You’re very welcome Bernardo. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season!

            Reply
    7. Justin says

      November 19, 2024 at 12:38 pm

      Hey Nate, Can’t wait for your review of the PYL UnInc as its been analysis paralysis for me between the Excavator, PYL Uninc and Ravine Pro to be my powder dominant board. I primarily ride in Colorado (Copper) but want to be stoked on this for use on the annual Valhalla trip. Landing on the PYL UnInc, but would you recommend the 159 or 161? I’m 6’1″ 195lbs 10.5 boot 30yrs riding. Thanks!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 21, 2024 at 1:47 pm

        Hi Justin, thanks for your message.

        I think the PYL Uninc would suit what you’re looking for well.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161/162. If you’re going to be mostly riding this board on pow days, then I would go 161. It will still be a good size for you on groomers, IMO, as well. The 159 wouldn’t be wrong or anything. The 161 is likely to feel a similar size to your West 160X, but will feel stiffer. If you wanted to add a little better maneuverability at the expense of a little bit of stability/powder, then I’d be leaning 159, otherwise I’d go 161.

        I have seen your other messages (apologies for the slow response on those). Let me know if you still want replies for those, and I can look at them as well.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Justin says

          November 25, 2024 at 4:27 pm

          I’m all set now with the others – thanks Nate!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 28, 2024 at 1:18 pm

            You’re very welcome Justin. Hope you have a great season!

            Reply
    8. AL says

      November 9, 2024 at 3:33 pm

      Hey Nate. The PYL was recommended to me, and I think your review just helped seal the deal. Now, I’m trying to figure out if I should go with the Uninc Dcp Xtrm, or regular PYL. I’m an advanced boarder with 35 years experience. Haven’t bought, or even looked at new boards in over a decade. Looking to retire my quiver, and land on 1 board (ideally). I lean towards firm’ish, aggressive, fast carving boards that can deal with ice and chunder. I spend most of my time in New England, so everything that comes with that. Love trees, backcountry, groomers, still hit drops and cliffs (provided there’s enough snow for my knees), but my park days are behind me. Also, I go out west every few years and do bowls/cat/heli runs. I’m 5’6″, ~155lbs, 9.5/10 boot. Whatcha think between those boards and length? I know you haven’t offically reviewed the Uninc, but looks like you’ve riden it. Thank you!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 16, 2024 at 9:11 am

        Hi Al, thanks for your message.

        Got on the Uninc last winter but still working on getting the 2025 reviews out. Between the regular PYL and PYL Uninc I would see the regular PYL as the better one-board-quiver, but that doesn’t mean the Uninc couldn’t work as that.

        The PYL Uninc is a little stiffer (8/10 by my feel) and a little more stable at speed/a little more aggressive overall. Below is how I scored the PYL Uninc, with the PYL scores next to it, for easier reference.

        Uninc PYL
        Powder 4.5 4.5
        Speed 4.5 4
        Carving 4 4.5
        Turns/Slashing 3 4
        Crud/Chunder 4.5 4
        Trees/Bumps 3.5 4
        Jumps 2.5 4
        Switch 2 3

        A couple of extra things to note.

        a. I would say the Uninc is a touch better for powder. To zoom in a little further, I’d think of the PYL as a 4.3, rounded up to 4.5 and the Uninc as a 4.5.
        b. I overall preferred the regular PYL for carving, but the PYL Uninc has a little higher ceiling in terms of how fast you can take it on a carve. But otherwise, I preferred the regular for carving.

        I’d be leaning PYL as a one-board quiver, particularly as I found the difference (in terms of the PYL being better) for lower speed riding to be greater than the difference in higher speed riding (in terms of the Uninc being better). But if you’re rarely riding slowly, even in trees – i.e. if you have pretty spread out trees – then the Uninc might be your preferred weapon. Typically for your size, I’d err more towards the 7/10 flex of the PYL rather than the 8/10 flex of the Uninc, but if you’re used to stiffer boards and you’re physically strong/athletic, with your experience, you shouldn’t have issues going PYL Uninc, if that’s what you’re leaning towards.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154. But these are the kinds of boards you can ride a little longer – and what you’re used to riding should also be considered given your experience. But based on your riding preferences and physical stats, I would go 156 for the PYL and 155 for the Uninc. With the Uninc being a wider board, the 155 is on the bigger side, but certainly doable, and if you’re used to riding like a 157 to 159, then it should be a good size. For the regular PYL, I’d say the 159 is an option too, but I’d only go that long for you, if that’s a size that you’ve ridden a lot in the past. Otherwise, I’d go 156. Width-wise, the 156 should be OK, but there would be some risk of boot drag, if you were in 10s, particularly if you ride with a fairly straight back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees) and/or you have bulky boots and like to carve on a pretty high angle. In 9.5s, I’d say you should be good.

        Hope this helps with your decision (if it didn’t come too late – my apologies for the slowness in response – have been falling behind all year!)

        Reply
    9. Meddy says

      October 31, 2024 at 2:52 am

      Thank you for breaking things down so well as usual! I like this board as well as the k2 passport. Is the passport a decent amount damper? which turns better at slow speeds? Thanks man!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 4, 2024 at 6:09 pm

        Hi Meddy, I found the Passport a touch damper the PYL, but there’s not too much in it. PYL is still pretty damp.

        Reply
    10. John says

      May 31, 2024 at 2:30 pm

      Hi Nate!

      Read your review and here is my situation:

      Weight: 79-81kg
      Height: 180-181cm
      Boots: 10.5 Burton Ion

      Wondering what size I should get for the PYL? I have a 159 Frontier based on your recommendations and they have been amazing in trees, I want another board specifically for powder and faster speeds and not necessarily trees this time. Is the PYL a good choice? Are there other boards you’d recommend?

      Thanks!

      John

      Reply
      • Nate says

        June 1, 2024 at 9:39 am

        Hi John

        Yeah, the PYL would be a good compliment to the Frontier, IMO and give you better speed performance for sure and a little better in powder too.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160 but, assuming you would be keeping the Frontier, I would be erring longer, given you’re looking to optimize speed and powder performance. Also, the PYL is narrower than the Frontier, so the 159 would be pushing it width-wise. I think the 162 would be your best bet, but the 160W would also work in this case. It’s not super wide for a wide board and would give you that extra width for more surface area for powder. However, the 162 would outperform the 160W at speed, IMO, and be as good or at least close to as good in powder. So I’d be leaning 162, but the 160W would be a close second in this case, IMO.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Nate says

          October 11, 2024 at 1:32 pm

          Hey Nate, thanks for your reviews and comments. They have really helped narrow down my search. I am 170 pounds, 5’ 10, 11.5 boot size. Intermediate to advanced rider who lives on the East Coast, but does trips out to Colorado and the powder highway. Need some thing that can handle the hard snow back here as I teach my son to ride, but is Great in the trees, carving hard and finding some powder stashes when it’s there on the occasion, I am out west.

          I am torn between the cougar X157, PYL uninc 157, hybrid 157.

          I plan to pair this with a flux XF binding.

          For reference, I have been riding my Burton custom 157 wide since I bought it new in 2007.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            October 15, 2024 at 2:29 pm

            Hey Nate, thanks for your message (and great name!)

            I really like the PYL Uninc for what you’re describing. We haven’t tested the Cougar, so can’t say for sure there, but on paper it’s not likely to be great for powder (but still a little better than the Custom, IMO, so if you were ok with the Custom in powder, you might be fine with the Cougar in powder). The Hybrid would also be a really good choice, if you can find a 2024 model (YES aren’t bringing it back for a 2025 model). In my experience YES boards tend to be a little better in hard/icy conditions vs Never Summer – but Never Summer still decent. Having not ridden the Cougar, can’t directly compare the Hybrid and PYL Uninc to the Cougar.

            Hope this helps with your decision

            Reply
    11. Max says

      April 11, 2024 at 5:01 am

      Hey, Nate! What would you prefer for ride trees: YES PYL or YES Hybrid? I am 82 kg, 185 cm, 9.5 US. I am looking for 2nd freeride board for trees/pow and trees/bumps.
      For Hybrid I choose between 157 and 153. 157 looks better for my specs but its waist width is confusing me, may be too slow in turn initiating.
      For PYL I am leaning towards 162.
      Which one would you prefer and what do you think about sizing?
      Thanks! You do great job!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 12, 2024 at 12:44 pm

        Hi Max, thanks for your message.

        I think the Hybrid in the 153 would be your best bet, if trees are going to be your main focus. The PYL wouldn’t be wrong though and would also work well, IMO, but I’d size to the 159, given your main focus with this board is going to be tree/bumps. Yes, longer will give you better float in powder, but in this case I would err a little shorter. While , I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161, in this case I would err shorter. Usually I would say go 162 for the PYL, if it was your only board or if you were going to be using it mostly for bombing, carving and open terrain powder, even if there was some tree riding in there as well. But with trees being main focus I would go 159.

        The Hybrid is really wide, but in the 153, that shorter length should compensate well for the slower turn initiation of its width. And the advantage of going this short is that it makes it less likely to clip your tail on a tree on the way through, if you’re in tight trees. To give you an idea of how wide the Hybrid is, the surface area of the 153 (42.3dm2) is the equivalent surface area to what a PYL around 160.5 would be. Which, apart from the shorter length for weaving between tight trees, is the other reason I would go 153 Hybrid. It’s surface area is more than the 159 PYL, which should give it better float in powder, but should still be a little more agile. I would say the PYL 159 would probably be as agile as the Hybrid 153, if they had the same flex, but with the Hybrid being a little softer flexing, that helps it, all else being equal, to be more agile at slower speeds.

        You mentioned this was to be your 2nd freeride board, so I am assuming this is to use as a tree board predominantly. Could you let me know what your other freeride board is and what it’s size is.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Max says

          April 13, 2024 at 12:51 am

          Thank you for your answer, Nate!
          My 1st freeride board is Burton skeleton key 162. I don’t like too stiff boards so I am looking on Hybrid and PYL. Skeleton is very good in all conditions but in tight trees/bumps I would like to try something shorter or with more narrow waist to increase its agile. PYL 159 is good for trees but may be to narrow for my feet and result in toe/heel drags. What do you think?
          So what is more agile in your opinion: PYL 159 or Hybrid 153? And does it match well with Rome Katana bindings (which I also going to purchase soon)?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 15, 2024 at 11:12 am

            Hi Max

            PYL 159 shouldn’t be too narrow for your boots, IMO. I’ve never had any issues on it with 9.5s or 10s. Though I am riding with a 15 degree back binding angle. But you’re still likely to be fine width-wise. I mean, if you’ve got bulky 9.5s a 0-3 degree back binding angle and like to get really deep in your carves, it might be borderline, but otherwise, I think you’ll be fine. I haven’t tested the 153 Hybrid, so I couldn’t say for sure, but I imagine it would be slightly more nimble than the PYL 159. Not likely to be worlds apart, but I’d say the 153 Hybrid would be more agile.

            Reply
            • Max says

              April 27, 2024 at 12:35 am

              Hey, Nate! Hybrid 153 is out of stock, but there is 157 at good price. What do you think 157 is still good for me or it might be too slow in turn initiation and PYL 159 is better choice?
              Thanks!

            • Nate says

              April 27, 2024 at 1:18 pm

              Hi Max

              I think the 159 PYL would be your best bet, between that and the 157 Hybrid, particularly given you want that maneuverability for trees. The 159 is a little more agile than the 157 Hybrid, in my experience.

    12. Bernardo says

      April 10, 2024 at 2:22 am

      Hi Nate!

      So I’m an intermediate / advanced rider (do mostly reds and black runs), who loves pistes and off pistes, with some powder (when I find it), but no freestyle or park.

      Oh and I’m a surfer too, during the summer.

      Where I snowboard I do mostly groomers, but I find myself trying to do more off pistes these last days. I love the challenge of finding new snow. And love slashing side banks, just like in surf hitting the lip of the wave, and have been hitting small jumps and sidekicks. That’s why I use 0º – posi stance, or posi-posi.

      So I guess I’m more of a “turner” than a freestyler. On groomers I try to do perfect turns, carves, and try to vary from short quick turns to long carves, so I don’t like boards that are too big or wide, because It affects my ability to turn fast (I have tried the Ride Maniac 160 and I felt it was too much, a bit slower going from edge to edge).

      I’m inclined for the all-mountain boards, but I have doubts.
      Then I saw your review on PYL and PYL Uninc, and I think the specs are spot on.
      What do you say?
      I thought about the Jones Frontier also, and the Yes Standard Uninc.

      What about size? I’m a US 8 boot, 177cm height and 68Kg.

      I want to find a board that suits best for a one board quiver, because I snowboard like 2-3 weeks per year (too far from the resorts unfortunately).

      Because I’m keen on pistes and off pistes, and do mostly turns and not freestyle, these are the specs I look for in reviews.
      And I value also a board that can make me progress. I don’t want to overvalue my skills, but I also don’t want to have a board that is too “begginerish” and then find it getting shorter on skill progression, and can’t be able to deal with black runs and steeper terrain, because I do love the challenge of trying to make turns on blacks and simply beat a steep wall.

      Can you help me?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 10, 2024 at 10:59 am

        Hi Bernardo, thanks for your messages.

        Based on what you’re describing, I would go PYL. I think the PYL Uninc is maybe that little bit too challenging and a little too stiff for you to enjoy those sharper turns and I think you’d prefer the width of the PYL vs the Standard Uninc (as well as the PYL Uninc) and the PYL is more directional and better suited to your riding style, IMO. The Frontier would work too, but it’s something you could risk growing out of. It’s softer than the other 3 and more easy going. For your tight turns I think you’d really like it, but won’t hold up as well in terms of stability at speed or in messy snow as the PYL, IMO. And it sounds like you’re certainly at a level that the PYL won’t be too much board for you, from what it sounds like.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155. With a more freeride focused board like the PYL (which is what I would call a freeride bordering on all-mountain board) you can ride it a bit longer, which wouldn’t make the 159 out of reach. However with size 8 boots, I wouldn’t size up that much. I think the 156 would be just right.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Bernardo says

          April 11, 2024 at 3:11 pm

          Hi again Nate!

          Been enjoying your posts! And thanks for the quick response!

          But I think you mixed up the names of the boards. So just To confirm: you think i would be better off with the PYL over the Uninc version and over the standard and Jones frontier, right?

          I was reading your posts on sizing and then went To check the boards. My stance is around 50cm. So according to the charts, the Uninc has a ref stance over 56 and minimum of 53. The PYL has ref stance of 54 and min 48. So even for these mesures, the Uninc with be of my specs. Am I correct?
          And because of my 8 foot, Uninc would be also too wide, yes?

          I’m sorry for the trouble, but try to look at all details, like you.

          What about bindings to match? Union force? Atlas? Niedecker supermatic?

          Thanks for all the help!!

          You are doing I great job!! You have got another follower!!

          Cheers!!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 12, 2024 at 12:59 pm

            Hi Bernardo

            Yes, I meant to write ”

            PYL Uninc may be that little bit too challenging…..

            Sorry about that. I’ve also now corrected it in the original comment, so that it makes more sense!

            And yeah, for a board of the PYL Uninc’s width, the only way I think you’d like it is if you sized down at least 5cm from your typical size, and it doesn’t come in anything shorter than 155.

            In terms of bindings, the Atlas would be a really good match to the PYL, IMO as would the Supermatic. The new Force is a bit too soft for it, IMO. The Force Classic would be a better match, but I’d still go Atlas over Force Classic.

            Reply
    13. Bernardo says

      April 9, 2024 at 5:44 am

      Hi Nate!
      Been loving your reviews and using them to try to narrow my search for a snowboard.

      So I’m an intermediate / advanced rider (do mostly reds and black runs), who loves pistes and off pistes, with some powder (when I find it), but no freestyle or park.

      Oh and I’m a surfer too, during the summer.

      Where I snowboard I do mostly groomers, but I find myself trying off pistes as well these last days. I love the challenge of finding new snow. And love slashing side banks, just like in surf hitting the lip of the wave, and have been hitting small jumps and sidekicks. That’s why I use 0º – posi stance, or posi-posi.

      So I guess I’m more of a “turner” than a freestyler. On groomers I try to do perfect turns, carves, and try to vary from short quick turns to long carves, so I don’t like boards that are too big or wide, because It affects my ability to turn fast (I have tried the Ride Maniac 160 and I felt it was too much, a bit slower going from edge to edge).

      I’m inclined for the all-mountain boards, but I have doubts and then I saw this review on the Yes PYL, and have been watching some of PYL Uninc version, and other boards, like de Jones Frontier, Korua Transition Finder, Rome’s Stale Fish.

      I want to find a board that suits best for a one board quiver, because I snowboard like 2-3 weeks per year (too far from the resorts unfortunately).

      Because I’m keen on pistes and off pistes, and do mostly turns and not freestyle, these are the specs I look for in your reviews. Love how you talk about the snow feel and the way boards deal with every kind of snow, because we all know we have lots of it at the end of the day, and some boards do get shattery on these conditions.

      I think your reviews cover all of the details that matter.

      I value also a board that can make me progress. I don’t want to overvalue my skills, but I also don’t want to have a board that is too “begginerish” and then find it getting shorter on skill progression, and can’t be able to deal with black runs and steeper terrain, because I do love the challenge of trying to make turns on blacks and simply beat a steep wall.

      What do you think?

      Reply
    14. Kong says

      April 1, 2024 at 1:55 pm

      Hello again Nate! Thank you again for your advice on the GNU RC C3(I think mine is still the latest comment 😀 ) and I ended up getting the 157.5cm, loving it since the first day.

      Now I am getting to the point to add a carve/pow board to my collection, and PYL seems to be the perfect choice for what C3 won’t be able to offer(e.g. carving and pow performance). What’s your take?

      Here is a copy of my other comment for the C3, and I am also debating on which size(156 or 159?) and model (this or Un…Inc?)I should get. I might also need to get a new pair of boots since I feel 9.5 might be too large for carving(I read that carving boots should fit tight??):
      “Hey Nate,

      This is super helpful, and I’m going to get one! I have been riding the Burton Process Flying V(2016-2017) 159cm for a while, and my boot size is 9.5 with height 5’10 and weight 160lbs. And I’m debating between 157.5 and 154 for this RCC3.

      Thoughts?”

      Just thinking out loud. I know there are lots of questions so really appreciate your insights here. Thank you!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 3, 2024 at 10:09 am

        Hi Kong, good to hear from you again.

        I think the PYL would be a great compliment. The PYL Uninc is a more short/wide version and a little more directional. I rode the 2025 model this winter and I’d say it would probably be a little better for powder and about equal overall for carving. I felt it was really good for higher speed, more drawn out carves, but not quite as good as the PYL for more moderate speed or tighter carves. The PYL is very good for all different carve types and at different speeds, making it more versatile for carving, IMO. And is a little easier for regular turns as well. If you’re goal is high speed carves, then the PYL Uninc is probably your better bet, but for more versatility in carving, I would go PYL.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157, so you could go either, but I would be leaning 159. You can go a bit longer with a freeride board like this, because there is more of the board outside the contact points than on something like the RC C3. And having that extra length/surface area will help for powder and for carving – particularly faster carves. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong, but I would be leaning 159 in this case.

        If you go PYL Uninc, I would probably go 155, because of the extra width. But you could go 157, if you wanted even more stability at speed and for higher speed carves and better float in powder. I rode the 155 PYL Uninc and I’d say it felt a touch smaller than the PYL 159, but minimally – at a guess the equivalent of a 158 PYL. The 157, would be more equivalent of a 160 PYL. The Uninc version does have a little less effective edge, so that tempers how big it feels, but I’d still go smaller in the PYL Uninc than what you’d ride the PYL in.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Kong says

          April 7, 2024 at 11:48 am

          Thank you Nate – I ended up getting the 156cm more for tree turns performance. Hope it won’t impact much on my carves and float on powder! I don’t ride fast anyway, with top speed being lower than 40mph.

          Hoping to see if I can test it out this season. I wonder if I need to upgrade my burton ruler for this board as well. Do you think getting a pair of tighter(I have 9.5 now but my mondo is 26.5 aka 8.5) and stiffer boots for this board is a good idea?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 9, 2024 at 11:04 am

            Hi Kong. Thanks for the update!

            Ideally I would go with something stiffer than the Ruler. They will work of course, but something a little stiffer would be more optimal, IMO. Mondo to boot size match is a good starting point, but doesn’t always work. Feet are weird and shaped differently, so it doesn’t always match. That said, there’s a good chance that you could get into a 9. Maybe even an 8.5, but if you’ve fit well in a 9.5, then an 8.5 is probably going to be too small. But a 9 might work. It can also depend on the brand. If you can try on, then that’s the best bet. If you can’t, you could check out <strong>this post. But note that everyone’s feet are different, so it may not translate directly.

            Flex-wise, I would ideally be looking at something with a 7/10 to 8/10 flex for the PYL. You could go stiffer than that, but for your specs, I wouldn’t go stiffer than an 8/10. A 6/10 flex would also work fine, but ideally around a 7/10 flexing boot, IMO.

            Some options in that flex in this list and this list.

            Reply
            • Kong says

              May 16, 2024 at 4:50 pm

              Ended up getting the BURTON ION BOA in size 9! I saw it’s listed as the #2 on the all mountain boot list, too.

              Can’t wait to pair them up with both YPL and GNU RC C4. Thanks again for all the insights! You are the best, Nate!

            • Nate says

              May 17, 2024 at 11:04 am

              You’re very welcome Kong and thanks for the update. Hope they work well for you.

    15. Alex says

      March 27, 2024 at 1:55 am

      hi Nate. good review! I’m following your reviews, it’s cool! Nate, please tell me, I have a Jones Frontier 156, if I buy yes pyl 156, will I feel the difference? are they very similar?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 28, 2024 at 9:07 am

        Hi Alex, thanks for your message.

        You would feel the difference, IMO. They aren’t worlds apart or anything, but they’re difference enough that you would notice it. They could be part of a 2 board quiver, but depending on what you were wanting, they may not be the ideal. But could work if you wanted a slightly more mellow, easy to ride, friendly board, for example for days when you’re riding with family or friends who might be slower or you just want to have a more chill day for whatever reason, but you’re still not really doing any freestyle stuff that much, so don’t need a freestyle board and want it to still be good in powder, then that’s the days you’d use the Frontier. Then on days when you wanted to ride faster, carve harder or go in deeper powder, then bring out the PYL.

        If it’s as a replacement, rather than as to add to your quiver, the PYL would represent an upgrade in a few areas, IMO. Namely, better stability at speed and in crud/messy snow, a little better float in powder and better on a carve, particularly higher speed carves – and better edge hold in icy conditions. You’d be taking a little bit of a drop in terms of ease of turns at slower speeds, but the PYL is pretty good there, still. Also a little bit of a drop in terms of butterability and ease of turns in trees, when there’s not powder in there.

        The PYL is a little stiffer (7/10 flex by my feel) than the Frontier (6/10 flex by my feel).

        Hope this gives you more to go off

        Reply
    16. Greyson says

      March 13, 2024 at 5:07 pm

      Hey, Nate — I’m looking to scoop up a 23/24 board to replace my well-aged 2015 Ride Berzerker (158R – too narrow for me). The PYL Uninc has been on my watch list but so far I’ve only been able to find a 161, which I think may be a little big.

      My specs: 6 ft (on a good day), ~175 lbs, size 12 boot

      Boards I’m considering (in current order of thinking). . .

      1. Yes. Pyl Uninc DCP
      2. Capita BSOD
      3. Lib Tech Lib Rig
      4. Lib Tech Dynamo
      5. Ride Berzerker (160W)
      6. Ride Deep Fake (157W or 161W)

      Primarily resort riding at Palisades & Mammoth but I try to make it to Utah 1x per year for Snowbird, Snowbasin, etc… I’d guess I’m Expert/Advanced and would describe my preferred style as All Mountain Freeride. I can’t be a pure powder hound and storm chase, so I need something that can handle some varied terrain. What I like to do (not in order). . .

      – Posi-posi hard carving when on the groomers with the group
      – Running off trail through the trees on something that won’t bounce around when in the softer stuff or hardpack and chunder
      – I grew up skateboarding and surfing, so enjoy a small amount of play and “surfiness”, esp in the soft stuff, but I don’t want to sacrifice edge hold. Edge to edge flickability is pretty important.
      – I’ll hike off-trail for a bit most weekends and like to pole whack my figurative poles before running down things like Main Line and the top of Granite Chief at Palisades, or traverse to the chutes off Broken Arrow. I’ll go down the side of the Fingers and hit the Palisades when the snow is right but don’t feel the need to send it down Eagle’s Nest.
      – Prefer harder charging vs slow and easy, and want something stiff enough to be damp through the bumps, but don’t want to catch an edge every time I try to slow down and cruise or when I’m off my game

      Boards I’ve recently demo’d + what I liked / didn’t like. . .

      1. United Shapes Deep Reach (159)

      Took this out at Palisades the first day after the recent 6+ ft blizzard and would consider this as a dedicated pow board, but not what I’m looking for right now

      Liked: deep rear setback and stiffness was great in the deep and steep; decent maneuverability; could hold well in long drawn-out S carves

      Disliked: felt like a plank in the hardpack and icy groomers; found it hard to get from edge to edge on anything outside of powder

      2. United Shapes Cadet (158)

      Liked: could absolutely bomb this thing downhill and it would plow through everything in its path. Once it was leaned over, the edge hold was great

      Disliked: Front-to-back stiffness was a litttttle more than I’d have like and the tail felt squirrely. It’s tapered, but the amount of rear wiggle surprised me when I wasn’t hard-charging on edge. Generally disliked how it turned when outside of soft snow, and it somehow felt skinnier than its 260 waist width would imply

      3. Yes. Hybrid (157)

      Liked: great edge hold in the front 2/3 of the board; ease of turn initiation; fun to butter

      Disliked: it wore me out with a lot of chatter in the front, and the overall board felt like it was getting bucked around too much — seems like it would be very fun in light/deep powder, but I didn’t like this in varied terrain

      4. Jones Flagship (159W)

      Conditions were varied and I wasn’t able to get it in anything too deep

      Liked: edge hold, very stable at speed, dampness (though maybe slightly too stiff for my taste)

      Disliked: at times, it felt like I was driving a boat when in steeper terrain and I thought the board felt delayed when linking my turns — the tail felt slow to come around and I had it wash out on me a couple times in steep hardpack. Felt like it got locked in on edge (good) but it was slow to disengage (bad). Slightly less pop than I’d like.

      5. Current board: 2015 Ride Berzerker (158)

      Like: great edge hold and flickability, decent pop, relatively stable at speed

      Dislike: it’s too skinny (wrong size); catchy when slowly navigating traffic and not on edge; I find the heel edge sometimes kicks out on me when on ice and/or moguls (may be primarily due to it being the wrong size?)

      I haven’t been able to find a 159 Yes. PYL Uninc DCP anywhere, but I did find a 161 at a local shop. Would this be unwieldy if I got into a tighter chute or in between trees? I may be leaning toward the BSOD and Lib Rig or Dynamo because of this, but I haven’t been on any of the Capitas or Lib Techs before, and sadly, I may miss an upcoming Capita demo day.

      Inventory is getting low at all the shops so I’m looking to pull the trigger soon. Anything else I should hunt down? Have also been told to consider the K2 Passport and the Jones Ultra Mountain Twin.

      Thanks for all your reviews. Cheers!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 18, 2024 at 1:59 pm

        Hi Greyson

        Thanks for your message and apologies for the slow response.

        I would say the PYL Uninc (rode ’25 model but no review yet) is as stiff as the Flagship, so if you found that a little stiff, you may feel the same about the PYL Uninc, but otherwise, I think it would work well for what you’re describing.

        The BSOD would be a good bet, IMO. Previously I would have said maybe not the best for you, given you still want that “flickability” (like the term!) at slower speeds, but I recently rode the 2025 model and it felt more flickable at slower speeds than when I’ve previously ridden it. However, if you’re looking at 23/24, not sure it would be as flickable as the ’25 model. It is a little softer flexing overall vs the Flagship though. I felt this at a 7/10 flex (vs 7.5/10 on the Flagship).

        The Lib Rig could work. I found it a really smooth, damp feeling ride. Not super quick edge-to-edge at slower speeds, but not a boat either.

        You may find the Dynamo, like the Hybrid to be not quite “enough board” for what you’re looking for.

        We haven’t ridden the Deep Fake, so not sure how that would ride for you, but on paper looks like it would be suitable. But hard to say, having not ridden it.

        The Berzerker in the wider size would be better for sure. But don’t think it would help with the slow speed catchiness. May help somewhat with the icy edge-hold but I don’t think it would be a profound difference, unless any of it had anything to do with boot drag.

        Jones Ultra Mountain Twin isn’t as good as the others we’re looking at in terms of powder, but otherwise could work well.

        K2 Passport could work. It’s a little softer flexing than the Flagship, IMO and ticks your boxes in most areas. I didn’t get it in icy conditions, so not entirely sure how it would go there. I felt it at a 6.5/10 flex (and the Flagship at a 7.5/10 flex). Only other real question mark would be whether it was stable enough at speed for you. It’s decent there, but not as stable as some others. But it’s a heavier board and relatively damp – not ultra damp, but damper than average, in my experience.

        The YES PYL (non-uninc) would work well for what you’re describing as well, so I think that’s an option. The Uninc would work too, but my biggest thing is the flex which is more like the Flagship. The PYL is a little softer (7/10 flex, by my feel). I wouldn’t say it’s ultra damp either, in terms of chatter, but it is a little better than the Hybrid.

        If you haven’t already you could also check out our list of top freeride boards here.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159/160, The PYL Uninc is one that I would hold out for to get in the 159 for you. But the 161 wouldn’t be heinously big for you or anything, but I think the 159 would be more optimal and worth holding out for, if you were to go PYL Uninc.

        Hope this helps (if it’s not come too late).

        Reply
    17. Bryan says

      March 8, 2024 at 10:30 am

      Hi Nate,
      Thanks for your review!!
      I am 5’9, 155lb size 9 boots. I am lookin for a carving board which can also handle some pow. I am from the east so most of the time would be on groomer, I am planning to visit west coast for couple of days every year for pow. From your review, I feel like PLY is a great option. Do you have another one or two option for me to consider? And also suggestions on the size? I have a soft all mountain board(burton process) 155.
      I have only been riding for 2 years, would this board be too difficult to learn? I didn’t want to waste money on a softer board and buy a stiff one years later, that’s why I would prefer get the board I can spend years and years on it.
      Cheers,
      Bryan

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 10, 2024 at 9:09 am

        Hi Bryan

        Thanks for your message.

        The PYL would work well for what you’re describing, IMO. It’s great in icy conditions and a really good board for carving and in powder, in my experience.

        It’s going to be a noticeable step up from riding the Process, IMO, but if you’re a solid intermediate rider with good technique, then it shouldn’t be too difficult, but will be more of a challenge.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155/156, so I would go 156 for the PYL.

        Another option to consider that’s also a good carver, good in pow and good in icy conditions, but not too advanced as to be too much of a stretch is the GNU Banked Country

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    18. Luis says

      February 26, 2024 at 5:47 pm

      Very interesting review, Nate! It would be great if you could test the PYL UNINC DCP as well…

      How would you decide between PYL and the NS Swift (#1 mellow). Is it just matter of the profile and the swift being a bit softer?

      Looking for a pow/tree specialist. For those days with more than a foot of fresh.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 29, 2024 at 10:49 am

        Hi Luis

        Thanks for your message.

        Got on the 2025 PYL Uninc this winter. Really liked it. It is stiffer than the PYL though. And I would take the PYL over it in trees. But I would take the Swift over the PYL in trees, so as a tree/powder specialist, the Swift is what I would go with.

        The flex and camber profile certainly aren’t the only things. But they are 2 things that make a big difference. I would go Swift based on how lightning quick it was to turn. It’s probably my favorite tree board I’ve ridden and while I didn’t get it in powder, it’s well set up to be great in powder – I would say it’s likely better than the PYL in powder, but I don’t like to give a board 5/5 for powder, if I haven’t tested it in there, specifically. But it will be really good in powder – so whether you’re in the trees with fresh powder or not, the Swift does really well. The PYL would be good though, don’t get me wrong, but I’d go Swift, if tree/powder is your main thing with this board.

        Note that this is comparing the PYL in a 159 and the Swift in a 158 and I’m 6’0″, 180lbs, size 9.5 boots.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Luis says

          February 29, 2024 at 4:21 pm

          Awesome! I got the Standard Uninc in 153 and it’s been fun. More aggressive than what I used to ride but the camber is helping me become a better rider. Good for groomers. Not the best for trees/pow (but I haven’t tried the slamback inserts).

          Sounds like the Swift 153 would pair well with it (or would you go larger in size?)

          5’7
          165lbs
          US8.5boots
          Athletic in general

          Reply
          • Nate says

            March 3, 2024 at 10:38 am

            Hey Luis

            Yeah, I think I would go 153 for the Swift and would be a really good compliment, IMO and in that size should rip through trees. While I would say that the 153 Swift is overall a similar size to the 153 Standard Uninc – and it would still be better in powder, even in a smaller size, IMO, so you should still get better float from it vs the 153 Standard Uninc. The 158 would be doable and would give you better float, naturally, but won’t be as good in the trees.

            I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156, but with 8.5 boots, sizing down to the 153 makes sense, particularly with the width of it vs your boot size.

            Reply
    19. Taz says

      February 26, 2024 at 12:59 am

      Good day, I am 1.81m 80kg 10US boot size, and I am confused on which size to pick. The board that I am interested in is the PYL Uninc as my first pick PYL as a second, I am more focused on all mountain more to freeride than freestyle side and my priority is the backcountry if the snow conditions are allowed too ….. I am riding for more than 25 years mostly on a resort with 70% of the year on groomed to icy conditions and like a 30% powder…

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 26, 2024 at 11:11 pm

        Hi Taz

        Thanks for your message.

        Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. But for the PYL Uninc, which is wider than typical, I would size down to the 157. At that length it’s still wide for your boots, but the sizing down of the length to compensate that width, I think the 157 would work really well for that one. For the PYL I’d be leaning towards the 159. But the 160W and 162 are also possibilities. The 160W isn’t super wide for a wide board. And you could size up a little for this board if you wanted to. Note that going with the 160W or 162 would give you better float in powder and, particularly for the 162, better speed and stability at speed. The 159 would be more agile and an easier going ride compared to the larger sizes.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Taz says

          February 28, 2024 at 12:33 am

          Thank you Nate for your prompt reply.

          Considering which binding to choose, I am between Union Falcor or The Burton Cartel X, what would be your pick?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 29, 2024 at 12:57 pm

            Hi Taz

            Both would work well with the PYL, IMO, but I would be leaning Falcor.

            Reply
    20. Edward Stuttfeld says

      February 25, 2024 at 8:51 am

      Hi Nate,

      Really appreciate your extensive board reviews.

      After riding my Libtech Skunk Ape 172W (2011) for 13 years now, I am finally considering to buy a new board. I am 6.4″, 188 lbs and with a shoe size of US 12-13. I love riding powder, but would like to use the board also as an AllMountain board. While I love the SkunkApe, I would like to move to a directional board, as the long tail of my True Twin Skunk Ape can be challenging to navigate between trees and not so steep powder slopes.

      With this in mind, I am considering the YES Hybrid 161 or the YES PYL 164W as valid candidates. However, I am still worried, that both boards might be a bit narrow and/or short for me?

      Thanks Edward

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 25, 2024 at 2:00 pm

        Hi Edward

        Thanks for your message.

        The 164W PYL may be a bit narrow, but I imagine the 161 Hybrid should be wide enough. I haven’t measured the Skunk Ape and certainly not the 2011 model, so I don’t know for sure, but based on other similar Lib Tech models, they tend to have less difference between their insert width and waist width, so assuming a stance width of around 23.5″ (597mm) – which is the reference stance width on the PYL 164W and Hybrid 161 – I would estimate around a 278mm front insert and 279mm back insert width on the Skunk Ape. In comparison:

        – Skunk Ape 172W (268mm waist): Front insert 278mm, 279mm back insert
        – YES PYL 164W (265mm waist): 276mm front insert, 274mm back insert (note that YES also measures this themselves, but have slightly different figures from me (278mm front, 274mm back))
        – YES Hybrid 161 (264mm waist): 283mm front insert, 278mm back insert (Yes has it as 282mm front insert and 276mm back insert).
        .
        Note that the Skunk Ape is (and was) a directional twin with a small (12.5mm on the 2011 model – more like 25mm now) setback. The PYL and Hybrid are tapered directional. Note that the back insert on the Skunk Ape will be wider than the front insert, because that small setback puts the binding position on a slightly wider point for the back binding than it is for the front binding. While the PYL and Hybrid are also setback, their taper counteracts that and they end up being narrower at the back insert than they are at the front insert.

        So, I think you’d be fine on the Hybrid, given it’s back insert is similar to the Skunk Ape (assuming you’ve not had any boot drag issues on the Skunk Ape). The back insert is the biggest concern as you’re likely to have either the same or a lesser angle on the back binding.

        Length-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162, which would put both of them at a good length, IMO. However, since you are used to riding a much longer board, there will be an adjustment there and since you’ve been riding for so long at that length, you could certainly size up a bit from that, if you wanted to. If you do think you’d like to go longer (I wouldn’t go as long as 172W again, but we could look at in between options), let me know and I would be happy to look for some options that would work for you.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Edward says

          March 1, 2024 at 1:48 am

          Hi Nate,

          Thank you very much for your feedback on the Hybrid and the PYL. I totally forgot to consider that the width at the back insert might be smaller compared to the Skunk Ape due to the tapered directional shape.

          With your feedback in mind, I would still consider the Hybrid a contender, but I am totally open to other suggestions, that are between 161 and 172 length wise. Other boards I also had a look at were the Lic Tech Orca (162) and the Jones Flagship (164W might be an option?).

          Again, getting feedback from your extensive knowledge about all the different board types is very much appreciated.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            March 4, 2024 at 10:59 am

            Hi Edward

            Apologies for the slow reply, busy testing gear this time of year and have a pretty large backlog right now.

            The Orca 162 and should be wide enough. I rode it with quite a narrow stance (530mm (20.9″) and it was 275mm at the back insert on the 153. The 162 isn’t actually much wider than the 153, but you’re still looking at 277mm at the back insert, but with a wider stance, you’d be at least as wide as your Skunk Ape at back insert. Not as good in trees as the PYL and Hybrid in my experience, but I think coming from a 172 Skunk Ape to the Orca in 162, you should definitely feel an improvement tree-wise. And does have the advantage of being a more familiar camber profile for you.

            I would personally go 165W Flagship over the Orca and you’re looking at around 278mm at the back insert on that one, assuming a 22″ stance width. Better for trees, in my experience than the Orca. Bigger size, but I think I’d still go with that in trees.

            Some others to consider, taking into account being good in trees

            – Jones Hovercraft 2.0: 164 (282mm back insert at 22.8″ stance width)

            – GNU Banked Country: 163W (276mm back insert at 22″ stance width)

            – Burton Deep Thinker: 163W (278mm back insert, 22″ stance)

            – Capita Navigator: 167 (278mm back insert, 22″ stance)

            Note that those are in order of stiffest/most aggressive to the softer more mellow options. But even the Hovercraft isn’t super stiff/aggressive or anything. But just to give you an indication of those. I’ve linked each one to our reviews, if you wanted to check any more of them out in any more detail.

            Reply
    21. Enzo says

      February 23, 2024 at 6:55 am

      Hi Nate
      I’ve been riding for around 14 years approx 2 to 3 weeks a year. My current setup is a PYL 159 2016 with Burton Cartels M of the same era and size US 9.5 Burton ions all purchased in 2016. +15 -15, 5′ 10″, 177 pounds. Recently, I’ve been noticing that my heel edge is sometimes washing out while carving. So I’m thinking of replacing my boots and bindings. Do you have any recommendations for what I should replace these with to help me to dial this in? Should I consider replacing the board as well?
      Thanks in Advance 🙂

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 23, 2024 at 3:27 pm

        Hi Enzo

        Thanks for your message.

        Getting boots/bindings that are more suited to carving should help a bit, but whether it’s enough to solve the issue is hard to say.

        For the PYL I would be looking at something in the 7/10 to 8/10 flex range for bindings and boots, ideally.

        For bindings, something from this list would be a good bet, IMO. And given carving is the biggest thing you’re looking to improve, I would particularly look at the Flux XF, Union Falcor, NOW Drive Pro and the Flux CV.

        For boots, the Ion should be fine, they are a good flex match, IMO. Unless you’ve ridden them to a point where they are now really soft? Which is a possibility. If you did want to replace your boots, I would look at the following:

        >>Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots

        >>My Top 5 Freeride Boots

        But note that some in that first list are probably a bit soft and some in the second list a bit stiff, so make sure to look at the details there.

        The good thing is, unless you were to end up going for a considerably stiffer or softer board those boots and bindings would work on a new board as well, so if you did try changing them and then found that you still wanted to change the board, you should be fine using the new gear on the next board.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Luke Jacob says

          February 25, 2024 at 9:53 am

          Hi Nate,

          Stats: 6’4
          210lbs
          Intermediate
          Burton photons
          Bent metal cor pro
          Free ride -6/15
          Freestyle -9/12

          Sorry I can’t seem to figure out how to comment without it being a reply(on iPhone idk if that’s the prob).
          Anyways I have decided on the PYL as my powder/carving board to complement my Salomon assassin 162. I love that board for teaching my wife and nephew on our little local hill in Cincinnati, and playing on groomers/light pow/trees but I just did a cat day in pow mow after a storm and felt like a second board would be worth it to me here.

          Want to start doing more of this so I’ve been looking at free ride boards for a while. Would mostly want similar characteristics of the assassin in a decently stiffer more directional shape with much better float/ speed/carving…of course I’m willing to give up playfulness/switch/slow speed maneuverability here but still don’t want a total one dimensional plank/bomber. I rode a NS proto fr and while it was fun to just go 50mph doing long drawn out carves it felt pretty dead and stiff to me and I like to play around more. So I just want to confirm a couple things:
          1) Do you think this is the right board to round out my quiver? I found myself wondering if maybe the 165 assassin or assign pro could’ve been a one and done for me as the 162 was really close just gets a little sketch around 35mph+ (fastest I’ve had it is 45) and doesn’t provide enough float even with bindings/disks slid all the way back.
          2) Will 165 provide enough float and keep me from having heel/toe drag(not a problem on my assassin -same waist and tail width) but I anticipate deeper carves)? Or should I consider 164W or 160W? My last board was a trs 165W and while charging it was great but I never felt I could totally relax on some combo of the c2x/that size/stiffness so it would start to punish me at the end of long days.

          Reply
        • Luke Jacob says

          February 25, 2024 at 9:55 am

          Photon sz 11

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 25, 2024 at 2:12 pm

            Hey Luke

            Thanks for your message.

            From what you’re describing, the PYL should round out your quiver well. It’s something that you can still get decent slower speed agility with, but will be a good step up from the Assassin 162 in terms of pow/speed/carving, IMO.

            In terms of size, I think the 165 would be a really good length for you and what you’re describing – and a really good length to compliment your 162 Assassin. In terms of width, I would say the back insert should be around 268mm and the front insert 270mm – at the stance width I rode the 159 at (570mm (22.4″) – but at the reference stance of the board (597mm (23.5″)) – and at your height, you’re probably around that, I’m guessing? – it will be more like 270mm back insert and 272mm front insert. In that case with a -6 back binding angle and in Photon’s, which are quite low profile, I think you would be fine. Note that YES’s insert widths at the 23.5″ stance width are 268mm back insert and 269mm front insert, but even if they are more accurate than me, you should still be OK, IMO.

            For reference to the Assassin, I would predict the 162 to be around 267mm at the inserts, with a 22″ stance width – with a 23.5″ stance width, that would be more like 270mm.

            Hope this helps with your decision.

            Reply
            • Luke Jacob says

              March 18, 2024 at 2:29 pm

              Thanks Nate that’s exactly what I was hoping to hear…my stance is just under 24” so should be no issues there either. Thank you!

            • Nate says

              March 19, 2024 at 12:39 pm

              You’re very welcome Luke. Happy riding!

        • Enzo says

          January 20, 2025 at 10:10 am

          Hello again Nate
          Thanks for the amazing effort you put in here.
          I purchased Union Falcors and DC judge boa combo on your advice :-). Used for about 3 weeks on the PYl and they made a huge difference and then managed to damage my board hitting a rock which put a serious dent in the in the middle of heel edge and damaged the core. I am contemplating either fixing the damage or buying a new board or both. I’m riding a little more switch these days to help improve my daughter’s riding (goofy). My other older daughter (skier) is gravitating more and more to the park so I’m thinking I need to change up to an all mounting twin. The boards I have shortilisted are :
          -The Jones mountain twin pro 157 (light board)
          -Yes Greats uninc 156
          I realise I will need to compromise speed and float, but you recommend one of these or anything else for that matter to go with the bindings and boots I bought? Thanks for your help as always 🙂

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 24, 2025 at 2:14 pm

            Hi Enzo, good to hear from you again. Glad to hear the new combo made the difference you were looking for, but sorry to hear you damaged your board!

            Your boot/binding setup would go with either of those boards, IMO. But the Mountain Twin Pro would much harder for learning in the park (if you’re new there) and a little trickier to ride switch (though if you’re a solid switch rider, you should be fine). The Mountain Twin Pro (based on my experience with its predecessor, the Ultra Mountain Twin – we haven’t tested the new Pro, but it looks to be quite similar, though not exact, to the Ultra Mountain Twin that it replaced) is a little stiffer and not as fun at slower speeds. So, I would be leaning Greats. I personally ride my Greats with Falcors and love the combo.

            Reply
    22. Leon says

      December 4, 2023 at 10:32 am

      Hey Nate

      Do you think this board can handle bigger natural features in powder (like 20-30 ft from take-off to the sweet spot of the jump)?

      I’m 175cm and 62 kg would a 156 be my size?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 4, 2023 at 3:06 pm

        Hi Leon

        Thanks for your message. Yeah, definitely, IMO. It’s got the nose/float to handle powder landings pretty well and it’s got the stability for bigger features, IMO.

        And particularly in the 156, you should get really good float/powder landings and stability. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” to be around 152. As a freeride board you can go a little longer than your all-mountain size, so I think, so long as you’re a fairly advanced rider, that you could handle the 156, but because it is on the bigger side for your weight, that will increase it’s level of float and stability, relative to your size, IMO.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Leon says

          December 5, 2023 at 8:10 am

          One more question,

          Would the Warca also be a good option, or should I just go with the PYL?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 5, 2023 at 3:24 pm

            Hi Leon

            I’d personally go PYL. The Warca could definitely work, but I don’t find it quite as good in powder. It’s still good in powder, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a full camber board and without that rocker in the nose, it doesn’t feel as floaty and I feel it would be more likely to nose dive landing in powder. It’s also a bit stiffer, in my experience. Though, that said, I rode it in a size that was a little bigger than I would have preferred, so it likely would feel softer if I’d ridden it in a smaller size. It should handle bigger features well for you. Size-wise, depending on your boot size, you’ll want to probably ride this in the 150. It’s really quite wide and is something that I am going to try to get in the 153 or even 150 next time. For you, I think the 153 would feel quite big, especially if your feet are on the smaller size. Personally I’d still go PYL, but hopefully that gives you more to go off.

            Reply
            • Leon says

              December 6, 2023 at 6:38 am

              Sorry this is the last question 🙂

              If I want to do more spinning tricks in pow (3’s, 5’s, underflips, …)
              Should I still go for the PYL?
              Or should I better go for the Warca then?

              Thanks for the helpfull reviews.

            • Nate says

              December 6, 2023 at 1:58 pm

              Hi Leon

              Particularly for 3s, 5s and flips, I think the Warca would work better, partly because it’s a little more double ender than the PYL, so landing and taking off switch will be a little better and also, because you’d be going with a shorter length it should be easier to get the flip/spin around. Overall, it would depend on how much of your time you’d be spending doing flips/spins, if it was a lot of the time, then maybe Warca is the better bet. If it wasn’t that much of the time, then I’d probably still be leaning PYL. If it was me and it was between the 155 Warca I rode and the 159 PYL, then I would probably still go 159 PYL, but if I was going to be predominantly be doing flips/spins in powder or at least a lot of the time, and I had the 153 Warca, I might be leaning Warca. If you were to go Warca, to get the spin/flip advantage enough, I would go 150 for your specs.

              Note that you’d still be getting more surface area on the 150 Warca (41.2dm2) as you would with the 156 PYL (40.7dm2), so you’re still looking at a similar landing platform in powder at that size (the PYL still better in powder size for size, IMO, because it’s more directional and has rocker in the nose. That said, the Warca 150 would likely be better landing switch in powder than the 156 PYL).

    23. Cliff says

      November 12, 2023 at 11:00 am

      Hey, Nate. Any thoughts on YES Pick Your Line vs PYL UnInc?
      Per my research, UnInc is slightly stiffer & slightly wider, along with more directional due to more taper & setback than regular PYL. The Jones Flagship is also on my radar.

      I’m 5’6, 155 lbs. Size 8 ThirtyTwo TM-2 XLT.
      Union Falcor w/ Forged Carbon highbacks.
      Current boards: 2010 Burton Custom V-Rocker 156, 2010 Burton Guru 159. I’m due for new, for sure. LoL
      This will be my 26th season; I’ve recently been getting 20-25 days a year. Since I started riding, nearly all shred days have been/are in Tahoe & Central Sierras.

      I consider myself an advanced freerider. I love to powderhound and hunt for fresh tracks, so I prefer getting into sidecountry areas & trees to find untouched goodies. But also happy w/ bombing groomers & laying down carves when pow is cruddy & tracked-out. When these off-piste snow conditions aren’t good, I might also put in a few laps in the park w/ straight airs on medium jumps (at most) and very basic grinds on rails & boxes. Hitting the X-course is super fun on days like this too! I don’t ride switch much at all. No moguls or pipe.

      Thanks in advance.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 12, 2023 at 9:27 pm

        Hey Cliff

        Thanks for your message.

        We haven’t tested the PYL Uninc but your observations look on point to me in terms of the technical differences. Couldn’t say for sure how much difference they’d ride in reality. But for your weight I feel you’d find the PYL Uninc quite stiff. The Custom V-Rocker and Guru (not boards I’ve ridden but based on specs) aren’t the stiffest boards, so even the PYL and Flagship you’re likely to find quite stiff, maybe a bit too stiff in the case of Flagship and PYL Uninc. You’re style of riding does suit a stiffer board, but I would temper that with your weight as you’re likely to feel them stiffer than I did.

        So I’d be leaning PYL and size-wise would go with the 156. If you went Flagship, then purely based on your specs, I’d be thinking 154. But given that you’re used to riding a 156 and 159, all be it softer flexing and likely more mellow rides, you may want to go to the 158.

        Your boots and bindings are a good flex match to either board, IMO.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Cliff says

          November 13, 2023 at 2:52 pm

          Thanks for your input, Nate.

          I appreciate your take on my choices, even if y’all haven’t had the chance to test the PYL UnInc. I also understand your concern on the stiffness of these boards compared to my current quiver. I’d say that my riding style & preferences and skill level have definitely progressed since I first got those. I was actually looking to “retire” them 4 years ago, but an MCL sprain postponed that plan. After taking a year off recovering from that injury, I’ve since stuck it out with these 2 reliable decks.

          I’ve also been researching and seeking out demo days for the past couple seasons. And I’m definitely digging ones that fit me & my style better, which mean stiffer than the mellow 4 & 5 flex of my current decks. I loved the response of Never Summer Harpoon, Lib Tech Orca, Burton Deep Thinker, Arbor Satori & K2 Excavator, all which I demoed in the winter of ’22. A check of their specs have a range of 5 to 7.5 in flex.

          Last spring at Palisades Tahoe, I was fortunate to demo this season’s Flight Attendant 152, Kazu Kabubo Pro 157 & Aviator 2.0 156. Sadly, they had very few YES boards and the shortest Flagship were 159w & 161. Only reason I hopped on the Aviator was to try anything Jones that was close to the 154 length of Flagship I wanted to try.

          I had a blast on all three! I took the FA & Kazu on nearly the same 4-run test loop, and did some Saddle-Saddle Face-Lower Mtn Run laps on KT-22 on the Aviator. Like the other boards I demoed the season prior, I really liked the response & stability of these stiffer boards (flex feel of 7.5, 7 & 8 respectively).

          Btw, I would have preferred the 154 Kazu but another guy had just beat me to it. Because its stiffness isn’t ideal for novice riders, the tech tried to talk that beginner out of it before I even showed up. When I returned the 157, the tech told me the guy came back after just one run. Heh heh. Grateful for folks like you & the tech that do your best to steer folks toward boards with the characteristics that fit our style, skill & physical attributes. Kudos!

          So, I absolutely agree with your size recommendations. I’m eyeing the PYL 156, PYL UnInc 155 & Flagship 154. And as you noted that I’m a lighter-weight rider who’s been riding medium flex boards, so I also see your point on leaning toward the PYL over the stiffer UnInc version.

          After my initial post, I ended up reading through the entire “Choosing the Right Snowboard” buying guide. And I hadn’t thought much about my strength & athleticism. I’ve always been lean and consider myself athletic. I’ve packed on over 15 lbs. of mostly muscle during the past 3 years, and I feel I certainly have stronger legs & core than before.

          This along with the fact that I rode confidently on the boards I’ve demoed recently, I’m absolutely sure in seeking out a stiff freeride deck to become my one-board quiver. Plus, I’d finally have a board that suits my stiff, responsive boots & bindings. It’s why I bought ’em. 🙂

          Thanks again. Stoked for this season and acquiring a new shred stick!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 14, 2023 at 3:59 pm

            You’re very welcome Cliff. Glad I could help you get closer to a decision. Hope you have a great season with your new deck!

            Reply
    24. Terrence says

      October 24, 2023 at 11:56 am

      Hey Nate,

      Hope you’re doing well. Looking for some advice on picking my next board and wondering about the PYL. My stats:
      -6’ 2”
      -240lb
      -US12 Burton Photons Step-ons w/ Step-on Genesis Reflex bindings (+15, -6)
      -Ride mostly Tahoe

      I’d say I’m a strong intermediate after 30+ days learning and progressing on a 162W Jones Mountain Twin. The JMT has been great but as I’ve progressed I’ve noticed some chatter/bucking in rougher terrain and higher speeds. I’m looking for a next board that is a bit better for speed and carving than the JMT. At the same time, I’m not looking for a pure freeride bomber. I’d like something that still has good maneuverability at slower speeds and for starting to progress a little into trees. I’m thinking directional (I’m not a park person and I’ll have the JMT for switch) and will only need decent powder performance since I may not see much of it.

      It seems like the Yes PYL (Is 164W the right size?) or the Jones Flagship (downsized to 165W for maneuverability) might fit the bill. What are your thoughts between the two especially with the updated 2023 PYL? Am I on the right track or are there other boards you would suggest based on what I’m looking for?

      Thanks for all your help. Your JMT recommendation really made my season last year and helped me progress.

      Terrence

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 26, 2023 at 10:59 am

        Hi Terrence

        Thanks for your message.

        I think the PYL would be a really good bet for what you’re describing. You’d be getting a better ride for all the things your looking for. And yeah 164W would be your best size, IMO.

        The only question mark would be the width. It’s likely around 273mm at the back insert and 275mm at the front insert, based on a 22.4″ stance width. If you were on let’s say a 23.5″ stance width for example, then you’d likely be looking at more like 275-276mm at back insert and 277-278mm at the front insert, which would give a bit more leeway. For reference the MT 162W is likely around 276mm at the back insert (assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width) and more like 278mm-279mm with a 600mm (23.6″) stance width. So it’s a little narrower than that. Not by a lot and you’d probably be OK, but wanted to mention that, in case you felt the width on your MT is borderline.

        The Flagship 165W would also be a really good bet and is a little wider. The back insert on the 165W Flagship, assuming a roughly 560mm (22″) stance width, would be around 278mm. If you’re more like 600mm (23.6″) with your stance width, then you’d be more like 280mm-281mm at that back insert.

        Note, the reason I’m focused more on the back insert, is because that’s where you have the straighter binding angle.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Terrence says

          October 26, 2023 at 1:06 pm

          This is incredibly helpful, Nate. Thank you!

          I do feel the 162W JMT is slightly borderline on width with my US12 using the 600mm reference stance. I think for a board where I’d be emphasizing carving I wouldn’t want to go any narrower and ideally I’d want to go slightly wider.

          So perhaps the Flagship 165W is the better bet, but I also wanted to get your opinion on the Burton Deep Thinker. The DT also seems to be in the mold of the PYL/Flagship as an aggressive board that was recently softened up a bit for better maneuverability. Do you think the DT could be a fit for the type of board I’m looking for and is there a sizing (163W?) that would work well for my profile and boot size?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            October 27, 2023 at 8:22 am

            Hi Terrence

            Yeah, the Deep Thinker is a board I really like. It’s more mellow again vs the PYL and Flagship, IMO. In terms of flex it’s pretty similar to the Mountain Twin. But it’s a little more aggressive and better for carving and speed vs the Mountain Twin, I’d say mostly due to the more aggressive camber profile. But yeah, I’d say more agile than the PYL and Flagship too.

            Width-wise, the 163W is going to be around 278mm back insert at a 22″ (560mm) stance width. So around 280-281mm with a 600mm stance width. So looking at something about the same width as the Flagship 165W.

            Reply
            • Terrence says

              October 30, 2023 at 3:13 pm

              Thanks again, Nate!

              After chatting with someone who has the same boot in the same size as me who rode the PYL without drag issues, I decided to pull the trigger on it. Super stoked!

              I am considering moving away from the Step Ons, though, because the ankle BOA strap on the Photons creates a pressure point on my foot. Since the Photons otherwise fit my feet well, I’m going to switch over to non-Step On Photons or Ions. With that in mind, I wanted to get your advice on bindings for the PYL.

              I did really like the Step Ons fast entry/exit, so I’m looking at the Supermatics since they offer them in XL this season. I’ve seen some conflicting review about how stiff they feel, their response, and their appropriateness for a board like the PYL. What do you think?
              For regular strap bindings, do you think the Atlas would pair well? Or is there a different Union you’d suggest? Also curious if there’s a Rome binding you would pair here since I do think the high level of adjustability they offer could be good.

            • Nate says

              October 31, 2023 at 1:52 pm

              Hey Terrence

              Congrats on the new board. Always exciting!

              I found the Supermatics to be mid-stiff, around 7/10 flex, so that would be a good match to the PYL, IMO. I have heard others considering them softer, but that’s not what I got from them. A person’s weight can affect how stiff they feel, so they may feel softer for you. With a board the flex is typically felt similarly because of how you size them (longer boards always feel stiffer than their shorter equivalent) but you don’t get that as much with bindings, though I would say the longer baseplate of larger bindings likely do add to feel of stiffness. Couldn’t say for sure. Someone heavier than me but fitting in the same size binding would likely feel it a bit softer. However, I can’t see it feeling less than 6/10. Some also just do their flex ratings based on how the high back feels to twist or pull back on. But most of your response is in the base plate. The base plate is never flexy enough to actually tell by hand – you have to ride it. But when you’re putting force on it when riding, the rigidity of the base plate has a big effect on response. The highback on the Supermatic does have a fair bit of twist in it. But very little pull back flex in the highback. And the baseplate must be fairly stiff as it felt around a 7/10 on snow for me. I think some people either just flex the highback and then rate it and some flex the highback and that gives them a bias towards thinking that it will be soft when they ride it. It’s like the Flux DS, which has a super flexy high back – one of the softest I’ve felt, but actually has really decent response and while the overall flex on that is more like a 5, the highback feels like a 2!

              But if you were worried about it then the Atlas is also a really good match. I felt it at 7/10, though it’s rated at 8/10. If you were really worried about that being too soft, you could go Atlas Pro, which I felt at 8/10 (rated at 9/10). You could also go Falcor, but given your style of riding, I think I’d be leaning Atlas or Atlas Pro.

              From Union, the Katana (6.5/10 flex by my feel) would do the job well. But whether you’d find it a little softer, potentially? The Cleaver (8/10 flex by my feel) is another option. The DOD might be a potential too, but we haven’t tested it, so couldn’t say for sure.

    25. Ruckus says

      October 10, 2023 at 11:25 pm

      Hey Nate – love the site and the in-depth analysis! I enjoy simply reading through all the comments.

      I’d love your opinion between the Lib Tech Golden Orca and Yes PYL, which has caught my attention w your review, as it fits my style. I’m 6’1 200lb and an advanced rider.

      I’m currently on year 12 of my LibTech TRS that I can’t appreciate enough — the TRS was everything I wanted, an all-mountain board, great on groomers, cut through ice, fun in the park, and let me charge the back-country.

      Now my riding has changed somewhat, bc of the crew I go with, and we do Whistler 15X a season. They’re obsessed with trees and backcountry, including creeks, and Peak 2 Creek may be my all-time favorite run. We’ll hit a groomer or two to warm-up, and if it’s a crappy icy day w a drought of freshies, we’ll stick to groomers. Otherwise, we’ll lap the off-piste in search of pow, and hit the glades time and time again. In the trees if there’s pow that’s awesome, and a lot of the time the glades are carved out and it’s like a luge run. We don’t go to the park anymore.

      At the end of each season, I’m amazed at how we zip through the glades and hit the off-piste terrain, and now I feel like my trusty TRS is at the end-of-the-line. Perhaps it’s the age, and it’s lost its pop, and I need to replace it.

      I love LibTech and after reading tons of reviews, I was leaning towards the Golden Orca after also considering the Terrain Wrecker. Upon reading your review, and others, I’m rethinking this and considering the PYL. I love Flow bindings bc of how easy they are to buckle-in and unbuckle when hiking out.

      Thanks and super appreciate your site!

      Ruckus

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 11, 2023 at 12:44 pm

        Hey Ruckus

        Thanks for your message.

        The PYL would definitely work well for what you’re describing, IMO. And that’s what I’d go with personally, but given that you’ve ridden Lib Tech so long and how much you’ve liked the TRS (is definitely a sweet board!) the Golden Orca might be your best bet. It would be something a little more familiar. Def not the same as the TRS, though. You’ll likely find the Golden Orca takes a bit more oomph to ride (as in you’ve got to be a little more aggressive with it), but as an advanced rider I don’t think you’ll have any issues with that, once you’ve gotten used to it.

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
    26. Tyler says

      September 29, 2023 at 12:29 pm

      Hi Nate – Do you think you’ll get a review out for the PYL Uninc?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 30, 2023 at 11:14 am

        Hi Tyler

        Thanks for your message. Unfortunately haven’t had a chance to test the PYL Uninc yet. Will try again to get on the 2025 model (assuming they make one) this winter, but that wouldn’t be until February at the earliest, most likely.

        Reply
    27. yak says

      April 5, 2023 at 11:11 pm

      Hi Nate,
      I’m considering of getting this board at 156 or Jones Flagship at 158 ($200 more).
      What’s your take between this two boards?

      I’m 5′-“, 165lbs, size 9 boots. I ride mostly (75%) fast hard packed groomers and the rest will try to get as much poder days as I can. I enjoy and I’m pretty comfortable at high speed 40-50mph and not too fast at turning in trees or doulb-black steep.

      Which of those two is better for me? Or do you have other board recommendation?

      Thank you

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 6, 2023 at 12:50 pm

        Hi Yak

        Thanks for your message.

        Personally I’d go PYL, but there isn’t a wrong choice between them, IMO. Both would suit what you’re looking to do well.

        The Flagship a little better in powder, IMO, but PYL a little better for speed and carving. PYL a little better in icy conditions, but Flagship still really good there, in my experience.

        In terms of sizing, can you confirm your height – your comment says 5′-“

        Reply
        • yak says

          April 6, 2023 at 10:42 pm

          thank you Nate!

          I’m 5′-8″. Currently riding 154.5 GNU Riders Choice (from 2012)

          Reply
        • yak says

          April 6, 2023 at 10:55 pm

          By the way, I found a deal so price is not an issue. I can get PYL 156 or Flagship 158 at the same price.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 7, 2023 at 10:08 am

            Hi Yak

            I think those sizes should work well for you (I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 156/157). Because of sizing, I would say the Flagship, because of the slightly longer length is going to be as good at speed as the 156 PYL and the PYL is going to give you better maneuverability in trees. So I think it comes down to deciding between Flagship being better in powder and PYL being better in icy conditions (and in this case because of sizing in trees as well). Flagship could even end up being slightly better at speed in the 158 vs PYL 156. Hard to say for sure. I typically get the PYL in 159 and the Flagship in 158, so those are the sizes that I’m familiar with comparing.

            Reply
            • yak says

              April 8, 2023 at 12:10 pm

              Thanks Nate!

              I’ve looked up a few more reviews and they say that the PYL is noticeable ‘un-stiff’. Is this true?

              I’m sure it’s stiffer than my old GNU RC, but I got to try 154 Jones Ultra Mind Expander and 151 Jones Flagship, and liking the stiffness. Is the PYL comparable?

            • yak says

              April 8, 2023 at 4:28 pm

              or would the Flagship 154 be better?

            • Nate says

              April 10, 2023 at 10:59 am

              Hi Yak

              The PYL is, in my experience not quite as stiff as the Flagship and certainly not as stiff as I found the Ultra Mind Expander. But I didn’t find the Flagship a lot stiffer than the PYL – just a touch. PYL 7/10, Flagship 7.5/10, UME 9/10. Note again that I was comparing PYL 159, Flagship 158 and UME 154. Also note that it’s been a while since I tested the UME (2020 model was last time I got on it).

              For a freeride board the PYL is relatively “un-stiff” but overall it’s not a soft board. It’s mid-stiff. It’s certainly stiffer than Medium, but it’s nothing crazy stiff or anything. So compared to a really stiff board, sure. But on average across all boards, it’s mid-stiff. Not sure what reviews you saw, but it could be the case that they don’t really ever get on softer boards. I test everything from 2/10 to 10/10 flex boards (though the extremes quite rarely as there aren’t many that would be that soft or stiff) and everything in between and I wouldn’t call it “un-stiff”. If you were to get on the 156 PYL it’s likely going to feel stiffer than the 151 Flagship.

              Given that you rode the 151 Flagship and from what I can gather liked it, then you could size down to the 154 Flagship, instead of going 158. Note that the 154 will likely feel a touch stiffer than the 151 but not as stiff as the 158. Vs the 158, the 154 will give you a little better maneuverability and easier for things like ollies/spins etc but won’t be as good for stability at speed or float in powder. But vs the 151 will be the other way around of course.

    28. Andi says

      March 1, 2023 at 2:58 am

      Dear Nate,

      you were so kind on January 21, 2022 to help me out with the Union Falcor binding in the Falcor review comments section.

      Thanks also for the recommendation for the Mega Merc Snowboard which I nearly have bought.

      But since last year my riding style changed a bit so that I even more rarely do little tricks, 180’s and switches.
      Therefore I much more concentrate on the following riding:
      – bomb down groomer going at high speeds (very seldom paired with a little indie grab or so)
      – carve deep in mid to big turns at higher speeds
      – when conditions allow go off piste in powder, or off piste besides groomer inbetween trees/through wood

      Right now I am still riding the super old K2 Zeppelin from the year 2005 which has a flex of probably around 8. I was afraid beeing to flexy when going with a board and a flex underneath. But anyway the modern technique and materials changed a lot with the years so it probably is not comparable a snowboard from 2005 and 2023 hahaaa (yes I know it’s time to get a new one!).

      Well while searching again and going through your ratings I thought my new board must be an aggressive allmountain board like the Zeppelin was.
      But then I found the freeride YES PYL and the ratings blew me away. Is that really the board of my dreams which would fit my expectations? Or is there still one or two board options which I should consider when comparing – not forgetting the Mega Merc.

      Finally I also took a look at the K2 brand I was thinkig about the Alchemist and maybe the even better fitt the Antidote but finally I wasn’t sure at all.

      Well, I would appreciate your opinion very much.
      Thanks a lot,
      Andi

      (something went wrong with my internet connection when previously posting this comment so I hope I do not post it double now)

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 1, 2023 at 11:11 am

        Hi Andi

        Thanks for your message.

        I think the PYL would work really well for what you’re describing. As I mentioned over on the Mega Merc review the PYL is a little softer than that – and very likely softer than your 2005 Zeppelin, so that’s something to note. But both Fraser and I experienced a nice stable feeling at speed on the PYL. When you’re whipping through trees it doesn’t feel that stiff, but it does have this knack of still feeling great at speed, somehow.

        There are other stiffer freeride options for sure, if you wanted to go stiffer, but I’ve always found the PYL to be something that feels good in almost every situation, be it speed, powder, on a carve, in icy conditions, through crud etc. It’s not super poppy or anything, which is perhaps it’s biggest weakness, but otherwise, it’s a board that’s hard not to recommend, if you’re not really doing a lot of freestyle stuff.

        I haven’t ridden the Alchemist or Antidote unfortunately. Have had trouble getting on a lot of K2 stuff the last couple of years (though hoping to get on more again this winter), so I can’t comment on those. On paper, they look like they’d be a good fit, but I don’t have any experience with them, unfortunately.

        You could also check out the following for other options:

        >>Our Top 10 Freeride Snowboards

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Andi says

          March 2, 2023 at 2:03 pm

          Hi Nate,

          thanks for your quick reply. You’re awesome!

          Well, it helps me out so that I can narrow it down to the Mega Merc, Yes PYL. Besides that maybe also the BSOD seems to be a good option for my ridign style.

          From your details describtion it seems that the Mega Merc is the ultra Snowboard to go for when it comes to to bomb, carve and pow if there is some pow (but fresh pow is due to global warming conditions a very rare condition in my near alps mountain: so probably Mega Merc is the champ to go with? On the other hand in assured pow regions the PYL would be the winner?).

          But if I compare the single ratings of yours in speed, carving etc. than the PYL seams to be so much of a better snowboard against the Mega Merc. I can’t work this out…
          Well, finally I probably should order both, haha!

          But finally I ‘m still not sure which one to pick:-)

          All the best,
          Andi

          Reply
          • Nate says

            March 3, 2023 at 1:40 pm

            Hi Andi

            Neither would be a wrong choice. And yeah BSOD would also be a good option for your riding style, IMO.

            Reply
    29. Anh Nguyen says

      January 28, 2023 at 6:17 pm

      Hi Nate,

      Thanks so much for all the time you put into this website. Super helpful!

      I’m an advanced rider from Montreal, Qc with 20 years of experience. I have to tackle a lot of icy/packed snow conditions but every year I plan a trip out west (Whistler/Kicking Horse/Revelstoke) in search of big mountain powder.

      I have a Burton Flight Attendant 156 (2016) with Burton Genesis bindings for high speed/powder and a Burton Hometown Hero 150 Splitboard with Burton Hitchiker bindings for the backcountry/tree runs. Boots are K2 Maysis 9.5. I am 5’8 and 135 lbs.

      Although I am extremely satisfied with both setups ( I LOVE my FA to bits) I’ve been wanting to upgrade from my Flight Attendant for something that’s even better at speed, powder and maneuvering but I am really unsure if the PYL is worth the upgrade as they seem very similar boards. My question is : what board should I upgrade to? Or should I upgrade at all? The PYL or the Jones Flasgship were the two I have been looking at for years… if so, in what size?

      Many thanks!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 30, 2023 at 6:16 pm

        Hi Anh

        Thanks for your message.

        I would say that the PYL gives you a little more in terms of maneuverability vs the Flagship but the Flagship a little more versus the FA. Neither the Flagship or PYL would give you much in terms of speed, in my experience. The PYL similar for powder but slightly better, IMO, but the Flagship should give you noticeably more powder float, IMO.

        So, in some ways I’d be leaning Flagship, as you’d be getting a little more maneuverability and a little more powder. But the PYL would also be a bit of an upgrade in those areas too. I find the PYL a little better in icy conditions versus the Flagship, but the Flagship still good and a touch better than the FA, IMO.

        You could look at the Ultra Flaghship or the PYL Uninc, if you’re looking for more speed or the Ravine Select – but those would be at the expense of a bit of maneuverability, IMO. However, I haven’t ridden the Ultra Flagship or PYL Uninc, so couldn’t say for sure.

        Hope this gives you more to go off

        Reply
    30. Martin says

      January 15, 2023 at 2:18 pm

      Hi Nate,

      I’m deciding between YES PYL and GNU Forest Bailey 4 x 4. I live in New England so the snow condition can get icy. I am at intermediate to advanced level and enjoy groomers and carving. I don’t really do parks and switch.

      Thank you so much!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 16, 2023 at 4:42 pm

        Hi Martin

        Thanks for your message.

        There’s not a bad decision between them, IMO. Both are good in hard/icy conditions. Both good on a carve and on groomers in general. Some differences that might help you to pick:

        – PYL a little stiffer. Not heaps in it, but the PYL I would say 7/10 flex, with the 4 x 4 more like 6.5/10
        – PYL better for powder, so if you see a fair bit of that, then that’s possibly the biggest difference
        – PYL a little better in terms of stability at speed and on a carve, IMO, but not too much in it
        – 4 x 4 has more pop/spring, if that’s important to you
        – 4 x 4 overall better for jumps – I know you don’t do park, but if you do any sidehits

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
    31. Max says

      October 31, 2022 at 2:28 pm

      Do you plan on doing a review of the unic dcp version of this year’s pyl? Just curious I’ve read a few reviews and they’ve said that it’s more than just a stiffer pyl and different thanks past pyl’s. I am super interested to read your take.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 1, 2022 at 10:11 am

        Hi Max

        Thanks for your message.

        Unfortunately didn’t get a chance to get out on the PYL Uninc. If they produce a 2024 version, will try to get our hands on one this winter.

        Reply
        • Max Coleman says

          February 24, 2023 at 12:27 pm

          Nate,
          I got to spend a week on the pyl uninc dcp. I was blown away. The most fun I’ve ever had on any board. To me it was playful, poppy, agile (where I live there are endless tree runs) , crushes through anything and charges so hard. It doesn’t ride switch well but basically I’m only riding switch to get out of something. I loved it so much I’m buying next year’s when it comes out and selling my flagship and kazu. For me it is the perfect one board quiver. I really look forward to hearing your thoughts on it if you get a chance to ride it. For me it had a huge WOW factor!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 24, 2023 at 4:03 pm

            Hi Max

            I was already going to try to get on the PYL Uninc this winter. Now I’m even more motivated to get on it!

            Reply
    32. Adolf says

      October 5, 2022 at 9:53 am

      Hi Nate,

      Thanks for the PYL review it is great and I think this is a board for my riding style. I just want your advice on the size I am 6’2 and 174 pounds, size boot 12.

      What bindings do you recommend?

      thanks

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 5, 2022 at 10:13 am

        Hi Adolf

        Thanks for your message.

        The 160W is your best bet, IMO. I think it’s just right for your specs. In terms of bindings, I would look at something in the 7/10 to 8/10 flex range. Some good options in the following:

        >>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings

        >>Top 5 Freeride Bindings

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    33. Johan says

      September 23, 2022 at 11:58 am

      Hi Nate! Whats tour take on PYL 23 vs PYL 22? You’ve mentioned some differences before this years review was published but didn’t really go into detail in your review. Care to elaborate? I had a PYL 21 but it broke at the end of last season and then picked up 22:s version but didn’t really have time to ride it properly. Your earlier comments about 22 made it seem like a wasn’t the best version of the PYL?

      /Johan

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 23, 2022 at 2:50 pm

        Hi Johan

        Thanks for pointing that out, your right that I haven’t mentioned the changes – I will add them in when I get the chance.

        I personally prefer the 23 PYL to the 22 version. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s “better” than the 22 model, but I prefer it. The 22 model was stiffer and that has its advantages of course, but I feel like the ’23 strikes a really good balance between bombing, but still being able to ride slow pretty well, ride trees well etc. I find it’s just right for that. But if your style is more bombing and powder and don’t need that slower riding/tree performance, then you might find you prefer the ’22 model more. For ’23 YES have a PYL Uninc, which is now the stiffer version – more like the ’22 model, but not exactly. But yeah, basically as a more bomby board the ’22 model has it, but the ’23 is more maneuverable and well rounded (IMO).

        Hope this helps/answers your question

        Reply
        • Johan says

          September 24, 2022 at 1:39 am

          I see. sounds like 23 would suit me better actually.

          Thanks Nate!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            September 24, 2022 at 11:39 am

            You’re very welcome Johan. Thanks for visiting and hope you have a great season!

            Reply
    34. Martin says

      August 26, 2022 at 12:49 pm

      Hi Nate, I’ve recently begun reading all of your posts and I cannot wait to see more content this season.

      Currently I’m riding a flow Quantum 2011 155mm with some cheap burton bindings (not sure what) and have Solomon Faction boots which are slightly too big (10.5, I’m really closer to a 9.5-10)
      I’ve been riding in the north east my whole life and this last year was mostly spent in the trees up at Stowe (was amazing).
      I’m 6ft and 165lb
      I’m looking at getting a much stiffer / more responsive setup than what I currently am running and the PYL peaked my interest, the regular PYL for 2023 looks like I’d have to go 159 to fit a 10 boot. Meanwhile the UNINC DCP is a little wider so I’d be able to fit a 155 and keep it small for trees but is stiffer so I’m not sure of the tradeoff there.

      I’m currently leaning more towards the UNINC but I’ve also heard advice to just demo for a day or two before getting anything and see what really feels right for me since I haven’t gotten new gear in so long.

      Boots / bindings I’m also looking to upgrade to something stiffer
      I’d like to go try some boots in person first obviously, but from reading your reviews the Adidas Acerra and the K2 Thraxis both sounded nice.
      Bindings same deal, just kinda looked at your free ride reviews and am looking at the 8-9 flex rating stuff.

      If you have any advice I’d appreciate some, but also I just wanted to say thank you for all the great reviews (even if they give me analysis paralysis)

      Reply
      • Nate says

        August 26, 2022 at 1:51 pm

        Hi Martin

        Thanks for your message.

        Since you ride a lot of trees I would be inclined to go regular PYL. It’s better for tighter turns, IMO. I haven’t tested the Uninc, but the 2022 PYL was stiffer than this (and past editions) year’s PYL and more like the Uninc is. And found that definitely less suited to those tighter turns in trees. In terms of sizing, I would put your “standard length” at around 158 and with a board like the PYL you can size up a little, so I don’t think the 159 is too much of a stretch. And going to the 155 in the Uninc, whilst making it easier to navigate in the sense of having less board that can catch on trees, it’s not going to turn any sharper than the PYL 159, IMO. In fact potentially less so. The extra width will slow down how quick it turns – and that extra stiffness will reduce it’s maneuverability at slow speeds. Unless you’re always bombing it through trees, I think you’ll notice that.

        Also, if you really wanted to keep that size shorter, then the PYL 156 is doable IF you end up in 10s or 9.5s, particularly if you get a lower profile boot. It’s too narrow for a 10.5, IMO, but with a low profile 10, I’d be pretty confident in most cases. If you run at a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees), then it might still be pushing it in a regular 10, but a low profile 10 you’re probably OK and certainly a low profile 9.5. And if you’re running a bit more angle on your bindings, then I’d be confident with a low profile 10 on the 156. So, if you plan your boots right, and depending what size you can get into, then the 156 PYL is a possibility.

        Certainly if you do get the opportunity to demo both boards, that’s always going to give you good feedback, so if you can I would.

        In terms of boots, both the Acerra and Thraxis would be good matches, but if you were thinking of trying to get on the 156 PYL, then I’d look at the Acerra (depending on fit of course, which is the most important thing) over the Thraxis, because it’s lower profile. I find with Adidas, I’m a 9.5, where I’m typically a 10 in other brands, so that only adds to how small you can get your footprint. With K2, I can go 9.5 at a stretch, so if you were able to go 9.5 in the Thraxis, then I think you’d probably be OK, but in a 10, I think it’s pushing it for the 156 PYL. Something like the Burton Driver X is another low profile boot and the Ride Insano and Vans Verse (the others in the top 5 you would have looked at) are also good options if you’re looking to go that high end of stiffness – they’re not quite as low profile as the likes of the Acerra or Driver X, but a smaller footpring versus the Thraxis. Other options too of course, but don’t want to contribute too much more to that analysis paralysis!

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    35. Angelo says

      May 25, 2022 at 7:33 am

      Hi Nate,

      I am trying to decide between a Flagship 160W or a PYL 159. I’m 5’8 and weigh about 173, and I ride 10.5 burton Ion boots.

      I currently ride a 2012 159 Capita BSBOD. I ride with skiers a lot and this board was pretty good for pointing it, but not great in the trees. I’m getting older and thinking that pointing it may not be such a priority, but I still want to be able to stay close with the skiers that I ride with when they decide to open it up. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

      Thanks,
      Angelo

      Reply
      • Nate says

        May 25, 2022 at 10:38 am

        Hi Angelo

        Thanks for your message.

        I’m going to assume you meant 159W Flagship, 160W or 159 PYL, as there’s no 160W Flagship.

        I would be leaning 159 PYL, because I think you’ll get away with it width-wise, given you have Ion’s which are low profile. If you’re riding with a really straight back binding angle (like 0 degrees or 3 degrees or something) then it might be too narrow, particularly if you like to get deep in your carves. But otherwise, I think you’d be good with it width-wise – and going with the narrower option will give you better maneuverability in the trees.

        To note, that the 2022 PYL was less agile than previous iterations, but that the 2023 is back to being more like older PYL’s. If it was between Flagship 2022 and PYL 2022 (assuming similar sizes) then I would say that the Flagship would be the more agile board. But if it’s between 2023 models, then they’re both about the same (again, assuming a roughly size for size comparison). But comparing the 2022 Flagship 159W to the 2022 PYL 159, the PYL would be more agile because of that narrower width.

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
        • Angelo says

          May 27, 2022 at 9:43 am

          Thanks Nate,

          I appreciate the insights. Sorry about about the sizing confusion, but you assumed correctly.

          I usually ride +18 and +3, so that was my concern with the 2022 159PYL.

          Thanks again,
          Angelo

          Reply
    36. Lee says

      April 1, 2022 at 5:13 pm

      Hi Nate,

      Your site is awesome, I’m so impressed with the time and thought you put into your reviews and feedback. Any insight you have would be greatly appreciated. My shortlist is the YES PYL (164W), the Jones Hovercraft (164), and Cardiff Goat (162). I’ve heard great feedback about the base glide on Jones and Cardiff, and that’s the main point of hesitation on the UES PYL.

      In order, I’m prioritizing (1) speed, (2) edge hold, and (3) trees – realizing that #3 is a contradiction to what makes a board good at speed. My riding preference is steeps and turns, I completely avoid the park. The board will be paired with K2 Thraxis boots and Jones Apollo bindings. Key stats:
      – size 12
      – 6’4”
      – 215lbs, athletic
      – Advanced

      My current setup has been a NS West 168W paired with Genesis bindings and Maysis boots. I primarily ride the rockies. I had an snowball experience demoing the Burton FA in whistler a few years back where it lost edge hold in icy conditions and I became a snowball. While highly entertaining for everyone else, I’d like to have confidence in the board.

      Thanks for your time and thoughts on the aforementioned boards or others.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 4, 2022 at 5:56 pm

        Hi Lee

        Thanks for your message and apologies for the slower than usual response – have quite a back log I’m working through right now.

        I haven’t tested anything from Cardiff, so can’t comment there, so the following is just be between the Hovercraft and PYL.

        In terms of stability at speed, the PYL has it over the Hovercraft, I would say, but not much in it. In terms of glide, the Hovercraft has it over the PYL, as is the case with most Jones boards.

        For edge hold in hard/icy conditions, the PYL has it over the Hovercraft, IMO, but the Hovercraft not bad – and still a little better than the Flight Attendant, in my experience in icy conditions – so less chance for snowballing!

        I’d say Hovercraft, in terms of trees over the 2022 PYL, but the 2023 PYL is a little softer flexing and a little more maneuverable than the 2022 model.

        Both would pair well with your boot/binding setup, IMO.

        Size-wise, I think 164/164W should work well. Smaller than your previous board, but both are stiffer, so even in the smaller side should offer better stability at speed – and what you would likely loose in tree performance is probably gained back, by going shorter than previously, so I think they should work well for you, in those sizes.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Lee says

          April 5, 2022 at 8:18 pm

          Thanks Nate,

          I picked up a 164W PYL today and am super stoked! Will report back next year once I get some solid drops and turns. Thank you again.

          —additional details if you are bored—

          Your feedback was super helpful, I was planning to wait for next year’s PYL and then decide. I looked locally and came across a 164W PYL and 172 Flagship today. Your point on trade-offs resonated, and I avoided the temptation of the 172 Flagship due to maneuverability in tight spaces (even if I was tempted by the idea of charging steep lines).

          I failed to mention that the genesis of all this was riding 10+ days this season on my buddy’s ‘18 Custom X (aforementioned bindings/boot setup supports) which was awesome when conditions were right and not the board when things got choppy.

          Hopefully I can hold off on looking for dedicated tree board for a while. Figure trees are more fun in powder anyways, so this is a solid start… n+1 is dangerous!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 6, 2022 at 6:52 pm

            You’re very welcome Lee. Awesome you were able to find the PYL in your size. Hope it treats you well and look forward to hearing how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow next season.

            Reply
    37. Terence says

      March 26, 2022 at 8:52 am

      Hi Nate! Thinking of getting a PYL primary for all-mountain use at Mammoth next season.

      I’m 5’10, 170lbs. Wear a size 10.5 in Thirtytwo TM-3’s and am looking for a size recommendation. Would you go 159, 160W, or 162?

      Thanks for all you do!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 28, 2022 at 6:45 pm

        Hi Terence

        Thanks for your message.

        I think you’d be fairly borderline on the 159, in terms of width, but I think around that 159/160 length for this board would work well for you, so I would be leaning 160W. And it’s not super wide for you. If you think you could get away with the width and would prefer to go narrower, then the 159 is close. But if you’re riding with fairly straight back binding angles and like to lay a fairly deep carve, I think it would be risky.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Terry says

          April 24, 2022 at 8:33 am

          Just got back from a weekend of riding this board for the first time on a fresh 14” dump at Mammoth.

          I went with the 159, and I have to say this board is an absolute DREAM. I’m firmly in the intermediate category, and this board did everything I asked it to do. It’s responsive, damp, super stable, and turns on a dime. It literally floated through winter wonderland powder and then on the next day handled the chopped up and hardened packed stuff with ease.

          I was nervous about whether my skill level would be able to even ride and enjoy this board (I brought my all-mountain board as backup) but it was so easy to handle and ride (paired it w a new set of Jones Mercury bindings) Sure it’s stiffer than anything else I’ve ridden, but the low flex didn’t impede my turning or board feel at all. This thing felt like it was turning as quick as my 154 park board and I had no problems on tree runs and mini carving on a traverse through packed up moguls and chopped powder. It felt surfy on the fresh stuff but then became a stable, dependable plank later in the day when it started to get packed. Small butters felt great and riding switch wasn’t too bad either.

          I will say that it did require a bit more “piloting” than any other board I’ve ridden before. The few times I got lazy or tired, I would feel the board try to take over. Ive read several sources say that it’s better to be advanced level to ride this, but I have zero regrets being intermediate and picking up this board. There was nothing about it that was difficult to handle, was so easy getting edge to edge and it made me feel very confident about freeriding on the big mountain.

          If there were one drawback I’d say that the base didn’t feel as fast as my Mountain Twin. Maybe it needs a few more waxings but it felt a touch slower. Or maybe it just felt that way because it was so damp. Anyways, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend this to anyone who is at a level where they want a quick-turning, stable and comfortable freeride board.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 25, 2022 at 4:13 pm

            Hi Terry

            Thanks for the update and the details and insight from your experience. Always good to hear perspectives from other riders. Jones tends to have the fastest bases, from my experience, so not too surprised with your experience there.

            Reply
    38. Peter says

      January 30, 2022 at 12:47 pm

      Hi,

      I’m 6’0” and 160lbs, currently wearing size 9 burton photon and riding 153 yes standard (readily happy with it). I’m thinking about getting more on carving and learning to ride powder. Wondering if I should take 156 or 159 for the pyl. Thanks man!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 31, 2022 at 11:53 am

        Hi Peter

        Thanks for your message.

        And a really good question – close call between those sizes. I don’t think there’s a wrong choice. I’d put you roughly on a 156/157 as your “standard all-mountain” size (the 153 is a good choice for the Standard as sizing down for your boot size puts the 153 as just right, IMO). With a freeride board like this you could certainly size up a little, so the 159 is definitely in range. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong though. Somethings to give you more to go off.

        – The 159 will give you better float in powder, be more stable at speed, and better for high speed, big carves.

        – The 156 will give you more maneuverability (for things like riding in trees) and be easier to ride at slower speeds

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Peter says

          January 31, 2022 at 12:59 pm

          Thanks Nate! Guess I’ll just find whichever one with a better price option. Really enjoyed reading your reviews!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 1, 2022 at 12:37 pm

            You’re very welcome Peter. Happy riding!

            Reply
    39. Migara says

      January 10, 2022 at 5:48 am

      Hi Nate – Have been loving reading through your very detailed reviews. I’m in the market for a new board upgrade – I’ve had the same one since 2012 (a K2 Raygun) which was my very first snowboard. I’m located in the North East and mostly have to deal with hard-packed or icy conditions on days that I go, but always hoping to be on the mountain when there’s fresh stuff. I mostly bomb down runs and when there’s good powder I like getting into the trees or even working on my technical riding through mogul fields (so long as the snow is soft). I don’t find myself ever wanting to go in the park – except for probably just working on my comfortability landing jumps so that I can be more comfortable of piste. Sooo I’m looking to upgrade my board finally with a free-ride board. Which has landed me here on your website. I’m a shorter rider, but a heavy-set guy (5′-6″ and around 185-190 lbs).

      I want a board which I can use as a daily driver to bomb down North East mountains with hard-packed to icy conditions, but when there’s a powder day I want a board that’s still going to do great on those days and float easily and be nimble through the trees. That stability at higher speeds is really important to me.

      During 2020 I tried the T.Rice Orca and I really loved it. It felt super stable at higher speeds, allowing me to keep up with my much more advanced friends. I mostly tried that out on similar conditions, hardpacked to icy – didn’t get to try it in the powder but I know from lots of reviews that big mountain powder is what it was made for. I sort of hate the new graphics on the 2022 orca and can’t find the 2021 orca in the size that I want (153 or 150). I was hoping you could tell me a bit about the differences between the Orca and the Yes PYL, and if you think the YES PYL would be a good choice for me given how much I enjoyed the orca when I tested it. Thanks!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 11, 2022 at 2:11 pm

        Hi Migara

        Thanks for your message.

        PYL and Orca are quite different boards. The most obvious differences are the volume shifted (short/wide) nature of the Orca and the camber profiles (hybrid camber on PYL versus hybrid rocker on the Orca – though the Orca has quite a stable feel for a Hybrid Rocker board).

        In terms of how they ride, some differences include:

        – PYL a little better on a carve, IMO, but Orca still good for carving (4.5/5 versus 4/5)
        – PYL a little more stable at speed, but again the difference is subtle and Orca still very good at speed (4.5/5 versus 4/5)

        – Both pretty similar when it comes to powder – as in really good. Both really good in icy conditions. Both have a damp and smooth ride feel to them (as opposed to snappy/chattery). In terms of maneuverability in trees, I’d say the PYL a little bit better over the Orca. But again pretty close.

        This is all assuming equivalent sizing. They are sized quite differently because of the Orca being volume shifter. Would be happy to make a sizing suggestion, if you could let me know your boot size.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    40. Geoff says

      December 28, 2021 at 1:27 pm

      Hi Nate,

      I’m trying to decide between a 159 and a 160W. I weigh about 175 and I’m 5’10”. I wear a Burton Ion size 10 boot. On the Yes website they strongly suggest that size 10 boots consider a wide board. But that 160W seems like it will be a little big for me (I currently ride 157 Jones Mtn Twin, looking to step up to a stiffer, more bomber board).

      I plan on using this primarily for powder, groomers, and big mountain terrain (steeps, open bowls). Will duck into the trees if the best snow is in there, and I enjoy hitting natural features from time to time.

      Do you have any thoughts?

      Much appreciated.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 31, 2021 at 1:57 pm

        Hi Geoff

        Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response – have been on vacation with the family, so a bit behind and trying to catch up now!

        I would be leaning to the 159 with your specs. I ride 10s (sometimes 9.5 and sometimes 10.5s) for the most part and haven’t ever had drag issues on boards with the 159’s width. I usually ride with +15/-15 angles but even with straighter back binding angles, I think you’d be fine on the 159 PYL, given you have Ions, which are low profile.

        160W would be doable, but IMO the 159 would be the more optimal size for you.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Geoff says

          January 1, 2022 at 9:44 am

          Very helpful, thank you Nate.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 2, 2022 at 3:46 pm

            You’re very welcome Geoff. Happy riding!

            Reply
    41. Rasheed says

      December 11, 2021 at 4:55 am

      Hi Nate,

      My buddy bought this year’s version 2021 and I rode it and noticed that it was significantly harder to butter than last year’s version. Your review was spot on! I hope Yes notices this and makes changes for the 2022 version next year. Just incase I bought a 160w and another 164w of last year’s version as I liked that ride better.

      -Rasheed

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 11, 2021 at 2:46 pm

        Hi Rasheed

        Thanks for the update. Would love to hear what you think of the new 160W compared to the old 164W.

        Reply
        • Rasheed says

          December 11, 2021 at 6:41 pm

          Will do.

          -Rasheed

          Reply
          • Matt Dewitt says

            January 3, 2022 at 5:01 pm

            Hey Nate, great stuff! Well I’m over 50 and looking for new board and wow so many options. At this point, I love riding trees. My current board is an old Burton BMC 156, but it doesn’t do so well in the powder. I don’t ride switch much anymore but still like the occasional airtime if I’m feeling froggy. Not even sure what to make of all the different profiles as I think all of my previous boards have been camber. Was considering this Yes PYL, Jones flagship, never summer proto, but really am open to thoughts. I’m 5’8”, 170, boot size 9. Thanks so much for your time!

            Reply
            • Nate says

              January 4, 2022 at 12:10 pm

              Hi Matt

              Thanks for your message.

              Between those I would be leaning PYL or Flagship, since it sounds like you’re looking for something better in powder and the Proto Synthesis isn’t great in powder. Also the profiles on the PYL and Flagship will be more similar to what you’re used to. They are camber through the middle of the board and under the feet – they have some rocker towards the tip and tail. They feel closer to traditional camber than the Hybrid rocker (rocker between the feet with camber underfoot and towards the tip and tail) of the Proto Synthesis, IMO.

              Both PYL and Flagship are great boards and there’s not really a wrong choice. If it was between an older PYL and Flagship, I’d say very similar in terms of performance in trees, but the 2022 PYL (IMO) got a bit stiffer and I found it less maneuverable in trees than in the past. The Flagship, IMO, went the opposite way – prior to the 2020 model, the Flagship wasn’t as good in trees and is now better. So for that reason, since you love trees, I would be leaning Flagship.

              Size-wise, I think the 158 would be spot on for the Flagship for your specs and how you describe your riding.

              If you did go PYL, then probably the 156, but the 159 would also be an option. Given your love for trees, I’d be leaning 156 though.

              Hope this helps with your decision

        • Rasheed says

          February 22, 2022 at 5:02 am

          Hey Nate,

          I would say that the flex of the 164W of last years model is softer than the the 160W of the newer model. Hope the folks at Yes realizes this. Nothing wrong with a stiffer board but last years flex was just perfect.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 22, 2022 at 12:53 pm

            Hi Rasheed

            Thanks for the update. Not too surprised there, based on the feeling I got when riding the 2022 model.

            For 2023 YES have actually reduced the flex rating on the PYL to 7/10, so it looks like they have softened it back up compared to the 2022 model. They are also bringing out a “PYL Uninc DCP” model, which has a few differences, including being rated 8/10 for flex. So it looks like they are going back to what the PYL used to feel like flex-wise.

            Reply
    42. Kamil says

      November 20, 2021 at 12:21 am

      Hi Nate,

      I cannot decide which board should I choose. I ride 80% groomers, 20% pow, no park, no switch, no trees. I expect from the board stability on high speeds, good edgehold on icy snow, stability and damping on uneven terrain (especially on bumps and moguls afternoon). I like to charge hard, but I also need to take a rest so it would be nice if board would be quite easy just for cruising. This is importnat for me that the board is also manageable at slower speeds when the leags are tired or when riding with family. I am intermediate rider. This would be my second board in my quiver, the first one is yes basic decade. There are only 2 boards on my short list capita bsod and yes pyl. What board would you recommend and what size? I am 183 cm, 95kg, feet 11us (burton ion)
      Mamy thanks

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 20, 2021 at 3:22 pm

        Hi Kamil

        Thanks for your message.

        Both boards would be suitable, IMO, but both going to be better for the stability at speed side of things, more so than the cruising at slower speeds. But neither are terrible at slow speeds, but they both certainly prefer going fast than slow.

        The PYL, IMO, is a little better in icy conditions.

        Size-wise, I would be looking at:

        PYL: 160W. It’s on the shorter side for your specs, but I think that’s a good thing in this case. The shorter size will mellow it out a bit for you, which will help it be better at slow speeds, whilst still maintaining good stability at speed

        BSOD: 162. It’s a wider board, so you shouldn’t need to go for the wide sizes, if you go with the 162. It’s wide enough for 11s, IMO. I think 161W would be overall quite big, given that it’s really wide – wide even for 11s, IMO. Especially given you want something that’s going be a good balance between riding it fast and slow.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Kamil says

          November 21, 2021 at 11:16 am

          Thank you for your comment. Maybe for my needs Yes Hybrid would be a better option? What do you think?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 22, 2021 at 10:30 am

            Hi Kamil

            I think the Hybrid could work for you, for sure.

            The sizing is the only thing to question. I think 161. But it’s quite for 11s in the 161. It’s a softer board, so it’s easier to maneuver at slower speeds, but it’s wide and maybe overall bordering on too wide, given the length. However, sizing down to 157, would be sizing down too much, in this case. I really like the 160W PYL for you – I think that sizing is spot on, and given that it’s a little smaller, it should be mellowed out a bit. 161 Hybrid could work, but yeah it’s the sizing that’s the only real question. Not saying that the size wouldn’t work, but it’s just borderline.

            Reply
            • Kamil says

              November 28, 2021 at 4:00 am

              Nate,

              I just checked that my current boot is ION US 11.5. I even think I can go with US 12 next time. Considering that my boots are US 11.5-12 do you think that sizes capita bsod 162 and yes pyl 160w are still fine for me?
              Many thanks

            • Nate says

              November 29, 2021 at 11:07 am

              Hi Kamil

              You might just get away with the 162 BSOD with 11.5s, but it would be pushing. With 11.5s, I think the 161W is the safer bet. With 12s, you’d want to go 161W for sure, IMO. With the PYL, the same thing. Probably get away with the 160W with 11.5s, but a bit narrow for 12s, IMO. The Hybird 161 would be a good fit with 12s – and with 11.5s it’s a better size match than it was when I thought you had 11s.

              All that said, it doesn’t change your foot size. If your foot size is the mondo of an 11.5 or 12, then going wider should be fine. But if your foot size is more mondo of a 10.5 or 11, then you still might find those options feel quite wide. But if you have a footsize that’s the mondo for an 11 and you’re having to go into a 12, then it might be the case that the brand doesn’t fit you that well, if you’re having to go too far above Mondo. E.g. if you have 28.5cm length feet and have to go into an 11.5 or 12, then you should potentially look for a different brand boot and see if you can get in a smaller size. But if you have 29.5cm feet for example, then those wider sizes should work well. Hope this makes sense.

            • Kamil says

              November 28, 2021 at 7:30 am

              Which boards is more forgiving? Pyl or bsod?

            • Nate says

              November 29, 2021 at 11:09 am

              Hi Kamil

              I would say both are very similar in the sense of forgiveness. The 2022 PYL I tested was a little less forgiving than previous PYL’s I had tested, so between the 2022 PYL and the 2021 BSOD, I’d say the BSOD is more forgiving. But I have heard that the 2022 BSOD is stiffer than the 2021 model. I didn’t retest the 2022 BSOD, because it didn’t look like much had changed, so I’m not sure there, but I have heard from one person that they felt the 2022 model was stiffer, and less forgiving, than the 2021 model.

    43. Mat says

      November 19, 2021 at 10:25 pm

      Hey there Nate,

      After a bunch of research I’m leaning towards the pyl, as it seems to fit my riding style. I’m all about going deep in the trees, off groomers to find powder, steep fluffy blacks, and occasional jumps off small/mid size natural features.

      I don’t carve all that much, I don’t ride switch unless I’m trying to get out of a sticky situation, and I’m not super interested in icy schutes or cliff drops which steered me away from the flagship as it seemed more suited to that.

      I’m 6′ 160lbs, 11.5 ride insano boots with large union atlas’s. I was hoping for a shorter board as my last 161 (crappy beginner board) felt really long in the trees, but with my boots/bindings I think I need wide. And it seems like the smallest wide is a 160w.

      I like the honesty and we’ll thought out responses you have here, so I’m curious what you think about this board/size combo with my profile?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 20, 2021 at 3:14 pm

        Hi Mat

        Thanks for your message.

        Yeah, unfortunately I think any of the regular width sizes will be too narrow for your boot size. The 160W would be the shortest that would be wide enough. It’s borderline too long, IMO. Especially given that you like to ride trees regularly. If you were more big mountain, open terrain powder for the most part, then 160W could work. But for what you’re describing, I think it’s getting too big.

        If you were happy to sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed, then you could also consider the YES Hybrid. It’s kind of like a softer flexing, short/wide version of the PYL. Only for your boot size, it wouldn’t be ultra wide. Still on the wide side, but you could size to the 157 and that would give you better maneuverability in the trees. Or if you really wanted to maximize tree time and weren’t concerned about stability at speed really at all, then the 153 could even work in that board. But I’d be leaning 157 for you, for striking a better balance between different factors.

        Certainly others that are suitable, but given you’d found your way to the PYL, that option stood out.

        Hope this helps and let me know if you’d like some other options. And also how much you like to really open out and bomb, like how much you need stability at speed.

        Reply
        • Mat says

          November 23, 2021 at 10:12 pm

          Thanks for the reply Nate!

          I had actually already bought the pyl 160w at what looks like the exact time you sent this reply.

          The hybrid came up on my radar while trying to find a board for my buddy, and for a moment I thought it might be something to look at as the specs were very similar. But I had already done so much research, and was sure the pyl was for me.

          However, you definitely planted a seed in my brain because I couldn’t shake your comment. I’ve been researching the hybrid the last couple days, and I honestly think you’re right.

          I feel like the hybrid should be plenty fast for me. I do like to occasionally go as fast as I can, but it’s definitely not my focus. Which leans me to agree with the 157 over the 153 as much as that maneuverability is enticing.

          Sorry for the long winded reply but I do have one last question as I returned the pyl and am going to for sure get a hybrid. What are your thoughts on the regular hybrid and the uninc hybrid? From what I’ve read the only difference is in the tail. But looking at the pictures, it looks like it has set back inserts as well.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 24, 2021 at 3:11 pm

            Hi Mat

            Good call, IMO.

            As far as I knew the only real difference for the Uninc was different glass on the tail. I can’t see the setback inserts in the picture I’m looking at, but we could be looking at different ones. I see the setback inserts on the Basic Uninc, but not the Hybrid Uninc.

            Hybird Uninc looks to be the same price as the Uninc, so either could work. Not sure how much difference that different glass in the tail makes.

            Reply
    44. Matthew Ulbin says

      October 16, 2021 at 2:47 pm

      Hey Nate
      I’m thinking I’m going to go with the 160w with my 11.5 adidas tactical lexicon adv boots. I ride +15 -15 I may bring my back foot more posi though to prevent backside wash that some people complain about . Do you think it’s wide enough?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 18, 2021 at 10:33 am

        Hey Matthew

        I think you should be good width-wise on the 160W with 11.5 Tactical ADVs. The 160W isn’t super wide for a wide board, but in your case, I think you’d be fine. Even with straighter binding angles, I think you’ll be OK, because of how low profile the Tactical ADV is. With bulkier boots and a very straight back binding angle, I wouldn’t be that confident, but in your case, with Tactical ADVs, and a roughly 270mm width at the back insert on the 160W PYL, I think you’ll be all good. A really good width for your boots/feet, IMO.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Matthew Ulbin says

          October 19, 2021 at 6:49 am

          Thanks , I saw on your review of the new 2022 pyl ,you said it rode little stiffer and less forgiven. It has the same exact specs as previous models. Could it just be the demo that you rode is a little off? Do you expect all 2022 boards to ride this way. Also how often do see changes in models from year to year with the same specs and material?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            October 19, 2021 at 10:38 am

            Hi Matthew

            Just noticed that the 2019 model (the last model of the PYL I had ridden before the 2022 model) was rated 7/10 in flex by YES. The 2020 model was then rated 8/10. Even between the 2019 and 2020 model nothing appeared to have changed, except for that flex rating. The Core looks the same, the same glass and everything else. Just the flex rating. This sometimes occurs just because a company wants to adjust the rating they give the board, even if the flex hasn’t necessarily changed. But I’m sure there are also changes made to boards that aren’t highlighted by the brand or shown in the specs. Had I noticed they changed the flex rating on the 2020 model (my bad – I go through each board every year and compare it to the previous model to see if anything changed – and I don’t usually miss anything, but this one got past me), I would have ridden that one. But even on the 2019 model, it felt stiffer than 7/10 (7.5/10 by my feel).

            But individual boards can sometimes feel different – and factors such as how many times the board has been ridden before I rode it, can also change how the board feels, subtly – i.e. maybe the 2022 model hadn’t been ridden as often as the 2019 model I rode (which is possible given it was a Covid affected demo season). But in my experience, I don’t think it would have accounted for that much variance. It’s possible that a production model you get would be a little more forgiving than the demo model I got, but I suspect, in light of the fact they changed the flex rating between 2019 and 2020 models, that the PYL is actually a little stiffer than it was. Though I’m not sure what changes they made to make it stiffer. Typically with the same specs and material I find boards don’t change noticeably at all – unless something major has happened, like they’ve changed factories or something.

            Reply
            • Matthew Ulbin says

              October 19, 2021 at 2:22 pm

              Thanks for the detailed answer

            • Matthew Ulbin says

              October 20, 2021 at 6:56 am

              I love glade runs and mogels do you think this board is more suited for groomers and big mountain riding or would you put it in a freeride all mountain board category.

            • Nate says

              October 20, 2021 at 10:41 am

              Hi Matthew

              I would say more suited to groomers, big mountain, powder. Certainly fine for glades and moguls too, but not as suitable, mostly because it takes a little bit of muscling in those areas and whilst it’s fine, if you’re doing it a lot in a day, it can get quite fatiguing after a while, I found.

    45. Rasheed says

      October 5, 2021 at 7:50 pm

      Hi Nate,

      It seems like the PYL 2022 has changed a bit. From your review it seems heavier and stiffer and less forgiven. Do you see yourself upgrading or sticking with the 2020/2021 model.

      Thanks,

      -Rasheed

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 6, 2021 at 10:54 am

        Hi Rasheed

        Thanks for your message.

        If it was me personally, I would stick with the earlier model. But I like my ride a little more forgiving, even when I’m riding a more big mountain board – just because I still can’t help but want to go into the trees, and I felt the earlier models were a bit better for that. But if you’re not really going into trees and want to bomb and carve mostly in open terrain, then the 2022 model would work well. Still a sick board for sure! But just can’t get away with being as lazy or casual on it now, IMO.

        Reply
    46. ezequiel says

      June 19, 2021 at 11:27 am

      Hi Nate! Thanks for the post!
      would you please help me? I ordered a PYL 162 but I’m considering changing my order for a 160w
      I’m 186cm tall and 82kg. My boot size is 10.5 (burton) and my stance angles for this board would be +18 -6
      Do you think I should change my order or not?
      Thanks in advance!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        June 19, 2021 at 1:54 pm

        Hi Ezequiel

        Thanks for your message.

        It’s a tough call. But I would be leaning 160W to give you that extra little bit of space. It’s not an overly wide board for a wide the 160W, so I don’t think you’d find it too wide. And with that -6 angle at the back, it could be pushing it width-wise on the back insert, especially if you’re really like to carve deep.

        Given you have Burton boots, that does help, but there’s still some risk in the 162 width-wise. It’s really close. You might get away with it but it’s borderline.

        I would personally go 162 (or 159), but I ride 10s mostly, and I’m not a fan of anything too wide. But in your case, with that extra half-size and the fact that the 160W isn’t super wide, I’d probably be leaning 160W. But I think your 50/50 getting away with the 162 width-wise.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • ezequiel says

          June 22, 2021 at 12:44 am

          It really helped me!! Thank you very much!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            June 22, 2021 at 12:16 pm

            You’re very welcome Ezequiel.

            Reply
            • Ezequiel says

              June 23, 2021 at 4:26 pm

              And what about the 164w?
              Would that be too much of a board for me?

            • Nate says

              June 24, 2021 at 2:34 pm

              Hi Ezequiel

              I wouldn’t say that the 164W would be wrong for you. I’d be leaning 160W with your specs, personally. But it depends a little bit on how you’ll be riding the board.

              If you’re going to be predominantly bombing hard with it and/or hitting a lot of deep powder, then the 164W is definitely worth thinking about. But if you want to be able to ride it slow sometimes, like to ride in trees or anywhere where you need maneuverability in tight spaces or want to do anything freestyle (it’s not a freestyle board, but some people still like to throw in some side hits etc even on a freeride board) with it, then I think the 160W is the better choice, IMO.

    47. Bryan says

      April 23, 2021 at 8:18 pm

      would this board be good for heli boarding free ride ?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 24, 2021 at 1:59 pm

        Hi Bryan

        Can’t say I’ve ever done a heli ride (definitely on the bucket list though!), but I would say it’d work well. I’m guessing with a heli ride you’re looking at steep & deep for the most part. I’d say there are probably better options that are a little better for powder. But I don’t think the PYL would let you down out there, in the right size for you. But yeah, can’t say based on direct experience.

        Hope this helps a little

        Reply
    48. Greg says

      March 7, 2021 at 6:38 am

      Hi Nate. Do you happen to know the edge angle of the PYL? Thanks!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 7, 2021 at 5:46 pm

        Hi Greg

        Thanks for your message.

        Sorry, unfortunately don’t know the edge bevel angle. I’m assuming it’s a lower angle, given it’s a freeride board, but I don’t know the exact angle.

        Reply
        • Steve says

          March 22, 2021 at 11:12 pm

          Hey nate I’m interested in this board but unsure between the 160w and 162
          I’m 6’3
          190lbs and size 10.5 boot

          What do you think?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            March 24, 2021 at 2:30 pm

            Hi Steve

            Thanks for your message.

            It’s a close call. Both sizes could work. I think the 160W would be a good bet, even if you could fit on the 162 width-wise, so I think that’s a safe call to go there. But if you preferred to go as narrow as possible (without boot drag), the 162 is doable depending on a few things:

            1. What is the brand and model of your boots (some are more low profile than others)
            2. What binding angles do you typically ride with?
            3. How deep do you like to carve?

            If you can let me know those things, I will have a better idea of whether the 162 would be wide enough.

            Hope this helps

            Reply
            • steve says

              March 31, 2021 at 5:12 am

              hey nate thanks for replying,
              i have salomon dialogue 10.5
              +15 -3
              not deep not shallow?

            • Nate says

              March 31, 2021 at 10:36 am

              Hi Steve

              Thanks for the extra details.

              I would go 160W with that setup. You might get away with the 162 width-wise, but it’s borderline and the 160W isn’t super wide for a wide board, so it’s not going to be too wide for you, but it’s going to give you more leeway on your carves to make sure there isn’t any boot drag.

    49. Arek says

      February 8, 2021 at 6:05 am

      hey nate,
      What happened to my comment from yesterday?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 8, 2021 at 11:39 am

        Hi Arek

        All comments are moderated. I have approved and replied to your comment now.

        Reply
    50. Ben says

      February 7, 2021 at 11:06 pm

      Hi Nate

      First up thanks for doing all your reviews they are very informative and helpful.
      I am hoping you can help me, I recently purchased the 2021 Yes PYL 159 and I’m looking forward to riding it soon, I am 174cm 84kg size 9.5 boots. Type of riding would range from groomers to side country and Japan powder when we can travel again post COVID. I was wondering which bindings you would recommend for this board ? I am thinking along the lines of either Burton Cartel X , Union Atlas or similar ? Hope you can help point me in the right direction.

      Thanks
      Ben

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 8, 2021 at 12:39 pm

        Hi Ben

        Thanks for your message.

        Both of those bindings would certainly be suitable, IMO. I haven’t tested the Cartel X yet (have some on their way to me now and should hopefully get on them this week), but on paper, they look like a good match to the PYL. For other options that I think would work well with the PYL and how you describe your riding.

        >>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings

        >>Top 5 Freeride Bindings

        First list, if you want to stick around that mid-stiff range. Second list, if you want to go stiffer.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    51. Arek says

      February 7, 2021 at 4:21 am

      Hej Nate,
      Great job, love your reviews.
      Do you have a comparison to nitro panther?
      I am thinking of buying between the two boards, I am looking for something good for carving on the slope and for freeriding.
      Now I’m riding salomon dancehaul 152 and I love it but I also need something longer for fast carving.
      my weight is 88 kg but I want to go down to 80 kg. 177 cm height.
      thanks in advance for your answer
      Greetings

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 8, 2021 at 11:39 am

        Hi Arek

        Thanks for your message.

        I haven’t ridden the Nitro Panther, so I couldn’t say for sure how it compares to the PYL. On paper the Panther looks suitable to what you’re describing, and the PYL is suitable for what you’re describing, IMO, but I can’t directly compare them.

        Size-wise, if you could let me know your boot size, that would really help. But based on those specs (based on 88kg), I’d say 162 for the PYL and if 80KG, you could still ride the 162 or you could size to the 159 as well.

        For the Panther, I would say 163, but you could also ride 160. Nitro’s specs on it put you above the weight for both those sizes, but I think 166 would be too long. Right now I’d say 163. If 80KG, again, you could still ride the 163, but 160 would also be suitable as well, IMO.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    52. Jed says

      February 5, 2021 at 1:10 pm

      Hi Nate,

      I have the option of getting a 165 YES PYL 2020/21 or a 164W GNU C3 Mullair 2020. I’m 6’ 205lbs with an 11.5 boot size. I’d say I’m an intermediate/advanced rider. I’m always in search of powder (isn’t everyone?) if that means ripping through trees to find it that’s where I’ll be. If there’s no powder to be found I’ll just play around doing butters, hitting jumps (small ones), or getting into aggressive carves and carrying lots of speed. I get bored just riding straight down so I’m always looking for something interesting. I don’t need a park board, not because I wouldn’t love to hit the park, but because I’m getting older and it’s just not my expertise, so I mostly stay away. What board would better suit my riding needs? I’m leaning towards the YES (because it seems to get better reviews and more closely match my riding style?) but I’m worried it might be too narrow (although the difference between the two is less than 1cm). I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 6, 2021 at 11:19 am

        Hi Jed

        Thanks for your message:

        For reference to start, I would say that:

        – Mullair 164W will be around 272-273mm at the back insert
        – YES PYL 165 will be around 266-267mm at the back insert

        Doesn’t sound like a big difference, but I would be much more confident with l1.5s on the Mullair 164W. The PYL 165 is too narrow for your boots, IMO, particularly as you like to do aggressive carves. Even the Mullair 164W is quite narrow for a wide board, particularly a wide board at that length. If you were to go PYL, the 164W would be the better option – and would be around 273-274mm at the inserts, I would say.

        I think both would definitely work for your needs, but size-wise, I would definitely go 164W Mullair over the PYL 165, because of your boot size.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    53. Quin says

      February 3, 2021 at 8:47 pm

      Hey Nate!

      Loving these reviews man. I’m looking at purchasing a new board that leans more freeride. I am currently riding the Salomon Assassin (2021) in a 158W. I love that it’s poppy but I’m finding the edge hold a bit frustrating. Honestly, the board made me a better snowboarder than I ever was as a kid – and I’m thankful for that. I think I’m looking for something a bit stiffer and I’ve found that I love riding in trees, hitting back bowls, and jumping off small/medium features. I’m looking at the Capita Kazu Pro and the YES PYL. I think my boot size was off up until now – measured my foot and followed some advice from Wiredsport to land on Size 9 Wide Burton photon step ons. I weigh 220 lbs, 6’0 (roughly 11% bodyfat, muscular and I find it really easy to muscle around the Assassin.

      If you think there’s a different board that I’d like over the Kazu or PYL that’s a bit stiffer than the Assassin, and great for back bowls/trees then I’d love to hear it!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 4, 2021 at 1:28 pm

        Hi Quin

        For what you’re describing, I think the Kazu and PYL would work well. For the Kazu, I’d go 160 for sure.

        For the PYL, it would be between the 162 and 165, IMO. The PYL has a shorter effective edge versus overall length than something like the Kazu, so you can ride it a little longer. Even the 165 has a shorter effective edge than the 160 Kazu, so I would be leaning 165 in the PYL, given your specs, and being athletic. If you feel that’s too long, then the 162 is certainly an option too – and would be a good option for trees.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    54. Dav says

      February 3, 2021 at 2:20 pm

      Hi Nate,

      I really appreciate all the time and effort you spend in sharing your views, which are so incredibly helpful!

      I’m 5′ 10″ and 145lbs and currently riding on an old Burton Clash 155 (full camber) with K2 Maysis boots (size 9). Skill level is upper intermediate/lower advanced. I almost exclusively ride groomers and like to bomb as much as possible.

      It’s definitely time for a board upgrade so I’ve decided on the YES PYL 156, but it’s out of stock on every single online site. Thus, I’m considering getting the 159 instead. Do you think the 159 will be pushing the envelope too much? I know that there’ll be a learning curve to learn and really tame this board, but I’m prepared to put in the work.

      Thanks for your help!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 4, 2021 at 12:55 pm

        Hi Dav

        Thanks for your message.

        IMO the 159 is a little too long for your specs. I think the 156 is spot on for this board for you – and 3cm, in my experience, does make a noticeable difference. If your set on this board, I would wait for 2022 model and get the 156 – or I would look at a different board in a more appropriate size.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    55. Jojo says

      January 21, 2021 at 4:18 pm

      Hey Nate!

      Just wondering which free ride board you’d lean towards. Currently riding a 152 Yes Typo with Union force binding. 5’6”, 140 lbs, size 8 boot. Advanced rider that rides everywhere, but the park. Using the Yes Typo to slash around the local Northshore Mountains with my 5 year old.

      Looking at adding a Yes PYL 156 (250MM waist) or a Jones Flagship 154 (246MM waist) to shred without the kid in tow and for trips up to Whistler and Revelstoke.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 22, 2021 at 10:59 am

        Hi Jojo

        Thanks for your message.

        Both great boards, IMO but I would be leaning Flagship 154 in this case, purely because I think it’s the better size for you. PYL 156 doable, but I would be leaning 154 Flagship in this case.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Jojo says

          January 22, 2021 at 2:39 pm

          Thanks Nate! Really appreciate the reply. For my specs and having the Flagship in mind, would you suggest the 151 over the 154? My goal for the flag ship is to shred off my favourite Blackcomb chair(7th heaven) while keeping the Yes Typo 152 for on piste and the slower pace of the N Shore laps.

          Cheers,

          Jojo

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 23, 2021 at 11:32 am

            Hi Jojo

            I think 154 would be the best bet. You can go a little longer on a board like the Flagship and I think that would be the best compliment to your 152 Typo. The 151 is certainly still within your range and if you preferred going shorter, that’s definitely not a wrong size for you. It would work well if you wanted a little more maneuverability in tighter spots and wanted a mellower feeling from the board – but would sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder.

            Reply
            • Jojo says

              January 23, 2021 at 8:20 pm

              Thanks Nate for your time and prompt replies. 154 Jones Flagship it is. Without being able to demo boards, your insight is totally appreciated! Happy riding!

            • Nate says

              January 25, 2021 at 1:04 pm

              You’re very welcome Jojo. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!

            • Jojo says

              January 28, 2021 at 8:22 pm

              Hey Nate,

              Will do, on the feedback on the Flagship. I bought the Typo this year on your spot on review. It’s been such a great All-Mountain board, freestyle oriented and super chill and forgiving. Thanks again, I hope you had a chance to shred some lines on the NS or better this week.

              Cheers!
              Jojo

    56. Ivan says

      January 20, 2021 at 8:58 am

      Hi Nate

      First of all, appreciate you for your job and comprehensive reviews of snowboard stuff.

      I’m looking for a snowboard for a good floating in a powder and little drops, the best riding area for me is trees:), sometimes hike somewhere in the mountain with a backpack (+10lbs), and in my expectations the board has to cope with bumps as well.

      I doubt between YES PYL 156 (or 159?) and Capita Kazu Kokubo 157. It would be great if you could share your experience and opinion regarding these snowboards taking into account the above.

      I’m:

      Weight 165 – 170 lbs
      US 9 boots

      Thank you in advance!
      Regards,
      reader

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 20, 2021 at 3:33 pm

        Hi Ivan

        Thanks for your message.

        Both certainly good for what you’re describing, and wouldn’t be a wrong choice in there. But I would be leaning towards 156 PYL, just because it’s narrower and I think it would be more maneuverable for trees for your boot size than the 157 Kazu. In terms of sizing though, I do like to take height into account as well (it’s not as important as weight and boot size, but I still like to consider it as well). If you could let me know that, I can confirm if I think the 156 would be a good bet for you.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Ivan says

          January 21, 2021 at 3:13 am

          Many thanks for your reply, it really help me to make a choice!
          I’m 177 cm (5’8″)

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 21, 2021 at 11:01 am

            Hi Ivan

            I think the 156 would certainly work. It’s a close call. With the 10lbs from the backpack, it pushes you closer to the 159, but without I would be more certain on 156. Some differences to consider:

            156 will give you more maneuverability for trees/bumps
            159 will give you more stability at speed, more float in powder

            157 Kazu kind of in between, but it’s wider, even versus the 159 PYL and with 9s, might not feel as easy to maneuver.

            I think I would still be leaning 156 PYL, because it sounds like you want to optimize your tree riding. But if I have that wrong and you like to bomb more than I’m thinking, then the others certainly come into play.

            Reply
            • Ivan says

              January 23, 2021 at 4:28 am

              Hi Nate

              Thank you for your support!)
              As a result I followed your advice and bought PYL 156.
              In a few weeks this board will be tested and i will let you know how it is:)

            • Nate says

              January 23, 2021 at 2:05 pm

              You’re very welcome Ivan. Look forward to hearing how you get on.

    57. Leon says

      January 14, 2021 at 8:51 am

      Hey Nate!

      If I was to go with the 164W do you recommend low profile boots at size 12? Also, what type of boot/binding combination would best match with the PYL? All mountain, all mountain freeride or just freeride.

      Thanks again for your help!!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 14, 2021 at 1:57 pm

        Hi Leon

        I think with the 164W you’d probably be fine in a regular profile boot, I just wouldn’t go with a bulkier boot. But there is no downside to going with a low profile boot, IMO, so I would go with one regardless, especially with 12s.

        For the PYL, I would personally go with something 7/10 to 8/10 in terms of flex for bindings and up to 9/10 for boots, but could still go with 7/10 for boots as well. So something from:

        >>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings

        >>Top 5 Freeride Bindings

        >>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots

        >>My Top 5 Freeride Boots

        Reply
    58. Tad says

      January 1, 2021 at 8:46 pm

      Nate,
      I love the fantastic detail on the reviews! I’m ready to replace my 9 year old 160 Lando Phoenix which has C2 BTX profile. I want something that has better carving , stability at speed, and edge hold than the Lando. The Lando does pretty well in powder.
      I’m an advanced rider that weighs 165 pounds and wear 10.5 Ride Insanos, which have a little bit smaller footprint. I generally ride out west.
      I spend most of my time riding groomers fairly fast but love to find powder when it’s available. I don’t go in the park and I don’t ride switch much.
      I’m down to the West Bound and PYL and am suffering from analysis paralysis. Sounds like I will get a bit better carving with the PYL but it won’t be as forgiving as the West Bound? Anything I’m missing? What size would you recommend with each? Will I miss the subtle magnetraction I get with my current ride? Would the Lib BRD be worth considering for the magnetraction?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 3, 2021 at 1:26 pm

        Hi Tad

        Thanks for your message.

        I haven’t ridden the Lando Phoenix, so I can’t compare directly with that, but in terms of edge hold in harder/icy conditions, the PYL is very good, so I don’t think you’d miss subtle magnetraction there – in fact in my experience the Tapered underbite on the PYL grips better than subtle magnetraction.

        Yeah, I would say subtly better carving from the PYL and subtly more forgiving on the West Bound. But those are quite subtle differences, IMO. The West Bound still a good carver and the PYL quite forgiving for how hard you can charge with it.

        I haven’t ridden the BRD yet, but with magnetraction I would say, in terms of edge-hold, it’s likely to be on par or slightly better than the PYL in terms of hard/icy conditions and a little better than the West Bound in those conditions. West Bound still not terrible in those conditions though.

        Size-wise, for the PYL, I’d say 159 or 160W. 156 wouldn’t be wrong either, but probably going to be too narrow, and given your riding style, I think 159 would be better. 159 I think would be just wide enough. 160W isn’t overly wide and I don’t think it would be too wide overall for you, but just the combination of the width and length I think is getting a bit big.

        West Bound, I think 157 would work best. It’s a little wider than the 159 PYL and it also the West Bound has more effective edge versus overall length.

        Weight, boot size, riding style and ability are the most important things for sizing, IMO, but if you could also let me know your height. I still like to take it into account. But I would say those sizes won’t change, but just to make sure.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Tad says

          January 5, 2021 at 7:13 pm

          Many thanks for the insight Nate. I’m 5’11”.

          Sounds like I can’t go wrong either way. Think I’m leaning more to the West Bound since I have enjoyed the hybrid rocker so much with the past board. I also like the top sheet and sidewall durability of the Never Summer boards.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 6, 2021 at 1:21 pm

            You’re very welcome Tad

            Thanks for the height details. Doesn’t change the sizing opinions from above.

            Reply
    59. Eric says

      December 24, 2020 at 1:15 pm

      Hi Nate,
      I’m 6’3″, 186 lbs with size 12 boots. Currently riding a 2018 Jones Explorer 164W which I feel comfortable on and looking to upgrade to the PYL. I’m advanced (do some backcountry/side country), except maybe an intermediate coming down moguls on a Saturday afternoon. Do you think the PYL will be a noticeable upgrade for riding in powder? Also, the 160W sounds slightly narrow for me, but I’m concerned that the 164W may be too much board. What do you think?
      Thanks and happy holidays!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 24, 2020 at 2:28 pm

        Hi Eric

        Thanks for your message and happy holidays!

        I agree that the 160W is going to be borderline too narrow. Certainly risking being too narrow with 12s.

        The 164W PYL will be a little more board than the Explorer, IMO, noticeable but not a massive amount. The 164W PYL will feel a little stiffer and has more in terms of effective edge, so will feel a little longer to ride. It is however, a little narrower, so in terms of maneuverability, that might even it out. I would say that the PYL 164W is around 272-274mm at the back insert, versus the Frontier 164W which would be more like 283mm at the back insert. Quite a big difference there.

        In terms of powder, it’s not a huge upgrade. 1/2 a step better. Just that little bit better for speed, carving and powder, but not streets above or anything, I wouldn’t say.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Eric says

          December 26, 2020 at 8:53 am

          How about the Yes Hybrid 157, would that be much of an upgrade in powder, or any other aspects?
          Thanks again for the advice

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 26, 2020 at 3:25 pm

            Hi Eric

            The 157 Hybrid would certainly be wide enough. And that’s the size I would be looking at for you, if you went Hybrid. Won’t give more in terms of carving/speed versus the Frontier, but certainly more in powder. But size for size, It’s not going to be more in powder than the 164W PYL. A little more for jumps versus the Explorer though, IMO.

            Reply
    60. Timur says

      December 7, 2020 at 2:29 am

      Hi Nate! Thank you for what you are doing. I am writing to you through an interpreter (we in Russia do not learn English well at school). But I think the meaning will be clear. I constantly read your reviews through the same translator and understand everything))). I’m interested in your opinion on how the PYL will differ from the NS Cobra and which mounts will work well with the PYL. I own a Burton Cartel and also look at the Flux XF. Thanks in advance! Continue what you are doing!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 7, 2020 at 4:58 pm

        Hi Timur

        Thanks for your message.

        I didn’t ride the Cobra, but looking at other reviews and based on specs of the Cobra these are what some of the main differences between the PYL and Cobra:

        – I would consider the PYL a freeride board and the Cobra an all-mountain board
        – The Cobra is a little softer flexing than the PYL
        – PYL better for powder, carving and speed, IMO but the Cobra a little better for jumps

        For the PYL, I would be leaning Flux XF over Cartel, just because the XF are a little more responsive and would be a little better at driving something like the PYL. In terms of mounting, if you have Burton Cartel Re:Flex bindings you won’t have any issues mounting them to the PYL. However, if your Cartel’s are the EST model, then it won’t mount on the PYL. EST bindings can only be mounted on a board with the channel system.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    61. Andy Wolfe says

      December 4, 2020 at 2:19 pm

      Hey Nate, thanks for all the information on your site! SUPER helpful. I’m an Intermediate Level 6 on your scale, 5’9″, 135 lbs., size 8 snowboard boot, & 36 y/o. I grew up surfing & snowboarded here & there over the years. I ride the same board I learned on, a 157 Burton Rippey with Burton Custom bindings & Salamon Dialogue boots. It’s generally great but feels a bit heavy & slow. I like to freeride though haven’t gotten into much beyond backcountry terrain off the resorts. I’ll hit jumps occasionally & do a 180 or grab but generally avoid the park. I’m moving to CO from TX now, got a pass for the 1st time, & am making it an excuse to upgrade the gear. I rode a buddy’s newer board a couple seasons ago & loved the feel of the new technology. I’m thinking the YES Pick Your Line is the right board for me & am wondering if you have a size recommendation btw. 156/159 (or anything else altogether)? I was thinking I wanted to go longer than what I have, but maybe the hybrid will give me what I’m wanting. Your sizing charts have me arguably below the 156. I feel like sizing up feels fine, though. Then, I’m also looking at the Union Strata M bindings & Adidas Tactical ADV boots in a size 8 (my foot’s 10″). My goal is to ride with all the new gear in a couple weeks!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 5, 2020 at 2:34 pm

        Hi Andy

        Thanks for your message.

        Ordinarily I would say to go more like 153 for your specs, but given that you’re used to riding a 157 and the fact you can certainly size up a little for a freeride board like the PYL, I think the 156 should work well. Not sure that I’d go to the 159 with your specs. If you think you’d prefer it, you could give it a go, but I would go 156, if it was me.

        Strata will go with the PYL. Personally I’d step it up to the Falcor on the PYL, but the Strata will definitely work. Tactical ADV will work too. Again, I’d probably step up the flex a little to match the PYL, but definitely in a range that works.

        Size-wise, I find Adidas boots fit me 1/2 size down from other boots (i.e. I typically ride 10s, but in Adidas I ride 9.5s). If you’re typically an 8 in snowboard boots, the 7.5 could be a better fit. Hard to say without trying on. The 8 will probably be fine, but if you were able to try before you buy I’d also try the 7.5 as well.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Andy Wolfe says

          December 5, 2020 at 4:51 pm

          Thanks so much, Nate — this is really helpful! I think I’ll go 156. A couple more questions:

          (1) Do you like the Yes Pick Your Line for me?
          (2) Would you recommend the Acerra (or another boot all together)?

          Reply
          • Andy Wolfe says

            December 5, 2020 at 5:03 pm

            (2) Scratch the Acerra bit — on the size, I’m in a Salamon Size 8, now. I’d try a 7.5 but seems they’re sold out everywhere. Do you have a runner-up boot suggestion?

            Reply
            • Andy Wolfe says

              December 8, 2020 at 3:21 pm

              Update – the 8 feels tight on the toes & 8.5 may be the ticket strangely.

            • Nate says

              December 9, 2020 at 1:35 pm

              Hi Andy

              That is strange. But then again feet are strange – boots always fit differently for different feet – that’s why I always recommend to try on whenever possible, because each foot seems to fit differently in different brands etc

    62. James Lovett says

      December 3, 2020 at 7:43 am

      Nate, Amazing write up and review on this board. Getting really excited for the coming season, hopefully it won’t be called early b/c of the pandemic but I had a few questions/concerns about sizing. I am 6’2″, 185 lbs, and have a size 13 boot. I also need to get new bindings and boots and just wanted to see if you had any recommendations on sizing/potential options for someone my size. Unfortunately, none of the previous replies have any answers for someone my size.

      Thanks again for your review, hoping to find the right size.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 3, 2020 at 12:48 pm

        Hi James

        Thanks for your message. Yeah definitely keeping fingers crossed for a full season.

        Length-wise, I think you’d be looking good on the 160W or 162. Unfortunately I think both will be too narrow for 13s. The 164W would be more doable, but even then is bordering on too narrow. You’d probably get away with it, depending on binding angles, how low profile your boots are and how hard you rail your carves. Length-wise, I think 164 is doable but it’s getting on the longer side for your height/weight.

        I would be happy to offer some alternatives that would be a better fit width-wise, if you weren’t completely set on this board. But I think just because of the width, the only real option for the PYL is the 164W.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • James Lovett says

          December 7, 2020 at 7:49 am

          Hey Nate,

          Thanks for your message. Certainly disappointed that this board won’t work for my size, but I’d love to hear any other options you think that would be similar. I really like how it’s a great board to carve and turn in powder and on groomers. If you have any other ideas of boards that are similar to this one that will actually fit my size I’d love to hear them.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 8, 2020 at 12:24 pm

            Hi James

            For what you’re describing, the first board that comes to mind is the Never Summer Westbound. And size-wise, I think either the 161X or 160DF (drag free) would be good sizes.

            The 161X is around 275mm at the inserts, which gives you a bit more leeway than the likes of the 160W and even the 164W PYL. Still could be borderline depending on a few things. With size 13s, even if they’re low profile, you’re still probably looking at around 33.5cm long. Which would be a 6cm total overhang (with no angle on the bindings). Or 3cm per edge, which is pushing it a little, if you’re going to be really railing your carves. And without low profile boots that would be worse. If you’re riding with a bit of an angle on both bindings, have low profiles boots and aren’t necessarily going to be really railing your carves (e.g. eurocarves), then I think you get away with that width. But if that still feels like it would be too narrow for you, then the 160DF is certainly an option.

            The 160DF more like 295mm at inserts, which would be a total overhang (no binding angles) of 4cm on a 33.5cm boot, which would give you leeway for longer boots than that too. So if you really wanted that freedom to be able to really rail your carves, that’s an option. Or even the 157DF – which would be sizing down a bit, but because of how wide it is, it might work to size down there. That’s definitely within your range too.

            Another option that I think would work well for what you’re describing is the Jones Flagship.

            For reference here are some rough width at inserts:

            – YES PYL 160W: 267mm at back insert, 270mm at front insert
            – YES PYL 164W: 273mm at back insert, 276mm at front insert
            – Jones Flagship 159W (or 162W): 275mm at back insert, 280mm at front insert
            – Never Summer West Bound 161X: 275mm at back insert, 276mm at front insert
            – Never Summer West Bound 160DF:295mm at back insert, 294mm at front insert
            – Never Summer West Bound 157DF:291mm at back insert, 292mm at front insert

            Hope this gives you some options and perspective

            Reply
    63. Marshall says

      November 29, 2020 at 9:28 pm

      Hi Nate,
      Thanks for the write up and wanted to double check sizing. I’m 5’10” and 208lbs and I’ve been on a 2014 Lib Tech Skunk Ape HP (161W) and haven’t felt like its ever been fast enough turning for me.
      Typically I like to be in the glades/steep trees/where ever I can find the deep powder at the less traveled resorts.
      Having said that I need something that still lets me hit groomed connectors with buddies but is quick to turn in trees (even if the powder isn’t as deep as i’d like). My buddy let me ride his jones flagship and it turned quicker and that started me hunting on a new board.
      I almost never ride park so I’m ok letting that be sacrificed. Anyhow, I’ve decided the PYL is my huckleberry but want to double check sizing.

      Chart says I should be on the 160W or 162 but I’m near the edge. What’s your take?
      A 164W or 165 scares me because I’m worried about ending up in the same issue of it not turning as fast as I’d like….but I know that has to do with so many other things than just length….just need some reassurance/guidance on that.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 30, 2020 at 1:10 pm

        Hi Marshall

        Thanks for your message.

        Based on how you describe your riding and your specs, I think the 160W or 162 is the way to go for you. If you let me know your boot size as well, that would help to narrow down whether the 160W or 162 might be more appropriate. If you could also let me know the size of the Flagship that rode, if you can remember/find out.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Marshall says

          November 30, 2020 at 4:48 pm

          Hi Nate,
          Thanks for getting back to me so quick.
          I’m currently in a set of Salomon Synapse Focus in size 10US/44EUR.

          My buddies Flagship is a 158.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 1, 2020 at 11:02 am

            Hi Marshall

            Thanks for the extra info. If you want a similar feeling ride, in terms of size as the Flagship, then the 159 PYL is also a possibility. Based purely on specs and how you describe your riding the 162 is probably more appropriate but if you liked the feel of the 158 Flagship, then the 159 is a possibility. Though you would be over YES’s weight recommendations then – but you were also over the weight recommendations on the 158 Flagship, so I think if you really liked that size, the 159 would be an option for sure.

            Often a wide board is too wide for 10s, but in this case the 160W isn’t that wide, so it’s certainly in range for your foot/boot size. It would certainly give you more leeway in terms of boot drag if you were going to be really railing your turns. But I don’t think the 160W is too wide for you – just at the wider end of a good range for your boots, IMO.

            On paper, I think the 162 is probably the best size for you for this board. And even in that size, I think it’s going to feel more maneuverable than the Skunk Ape for you. Largely because the Skunk Ape 161W is too wide for your boot/foot size, IMO. I find a board that’s too wide for my feet tends to be more of an effort to maneuver – and can feel particularly slow to turn in tight spaces, like trees. But if you did want even quicker maneuverability, then the 159 would certainly give you that. Also to keep in mind that the Skunk Ape 161W probably rides more like a 163W PYL, in terms of size, so going 162 in the PYL you’re going slightly shorter as well as going narrower.

            Hope this helps

            Reply
    64. ian says

      November 22, 2020 at 1:04 pm

      Hi Nate, Awesome site and reviews. Really appreciate how nuanced and thorough you are in your advice. I tried to answer my question from other responses but have seen you advise both ways for similar situations. For background, been boarding for 20+ years have a small quiver of oldies but usually end up spending 80-90% on the newest one. I Rode a 160 palmer honeycomb (which I loved) for almost a decade until it started getting creaky, then a rome 155 agent rocker because i wanted something totally different and more playful for park/pipe but as I’ve gotten older I’ve been doing less park and more focused on powder riding steeps and in trees so last few years have been on a 151 Yes Optimistic which I”ve loved (almost as much as my palmer). I ride mostly tahoe resorts with expert skiers who I also have to keep up with but i def pick my own lines, I’m 5’9 155 with a 9.5 solomon boot size. I’ve been looking at the PYL 156/159 and the Jones flagship 158/161.

      After my hours of research, I’m leaning PYL over Flagship, so would love your thoughts on that and then also your advice on size, if PYL im thinking 159 and if jones im thinking 158. I’ve had no problems riding 160s and 163 (burton johan) in the past and given that i already have a short fat board in the 151 optimistic I’m thinking better to add a longer board to the quiver. That said, on a powder day who wants to switch out boards so maybe going 156 would be better all around? Also wondering if the 159 is really the sweet spot of the PYL line given that it’s the length created for DCP.

      Please help put me out of my misery 😉 Thanks in advance!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 23, 2020 at 1:16 pm

        Hi Ian

        Thanks for your message.

        Firstly both boards would certainly suit what you’re describing, so there’s not really a wrong choice between the Flagship and PYL, but since your already leaning PYL and that’s your instinct, I would stick with that (and it is a sick board too!, not taking anything away from the Flagship though).

        Size-wise, typically I would say 156 for your specs. However, with a freeride board like this going longer is often a good idea and since you’re used to riding boards in 160+, I think I would also be leaning 159. That and, as you mention, that you already have the short/wide board in your quiver. I think the 159 makes the most sense in this particular instance. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong by any means, but in this particular set of circumstances I would be leaning 159. Also, I find longer boards perform better in powder – certainly in deep powder in terms of ease of float. That said, certainly in trees, going shorter is an advantage, so if you’re powder riding is spent predominantly in trees, that is another factor to consider.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    65. Evan says

      November 15, 2020 at 4:27 am

      Hi Nate,

      thanks so much for your help (in another thread about the Niche Story). Really helped me narrow down my options. I got sized for new boots and realize that I’m actually able to ride way smaller than my old bulky boots: I’ll be in size 11 Salomon. Given that smaller size, I’m interested again in the PYL 160W, trying to decide between that and the Hybrid 157. For 185 lbs, 6′, size 11 Salomon (and a fan of deep carves on groomers when possible), would the PYL 160W be plenty wide enough for me? Still seems like a remarkable board, and a harder carver than the Hybrid. Thanks again!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 16, 2020 at 10:56 am

        Hi Evan

        Thanks for the update.

        I think you should be good in 11s, in terms of width on the PYL 160W. And yeah, I think it’s just that little bit better on a carve versus the Hybrid. Hybrid not bad there, but the PYL a little step up. So yeah, I think the 160W would for you now that you’ve gone from a 12 to 11. Most Salomon boots aren’t that low profile (though the new Dialogue and Launch are quite low profile), but even so, I don’t think you should have any issues in 11s on the 160W.

        Reply
    66. Pete says

      November 6, 2020 at 9:05 pm

      Hi! I’m 5’6″ 163lb and have size 10 boots, what size would you recommend for the Pick Your Line? Thanks! P.S. can you also recommend a size for the Yes Hybrid, trying to decided between the two.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 7, 2020 at 2:12 pm

        Hi Pete

        Thanks for your message.

        For the Pick Your Line I would go 156 for your specs and 153 for the Hybrid. No real debate on those sizes, IMO. 159 too big in the Pick Your Line IMO and 157 too big in the Hybrid, IMO. The only debate on the 156 PYL would be the width, but I think you’d likely be OK. But if you really like to lay into your carves and have a fairly straight back binding angle and don’t have low profile boots, then it might be too narrow. Otherwise, I think it works width-wise. But yeah 156 PYL and 153 Hybrid would both work well for your specs, IMO.

        Hope this helps

        Reply
        • Peter says

          November 7, 2020 at 3:56 pm

          Extremely helpful, thanks! A quick follow up; trying to decide between these two for carving on groomers, hitting side-hits, and powder riding here in the Pacific Northwest?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 9, 2020 at 10:38 am

            Hi Peter

            Of carving on groomers, I’d personally go PYL. For sidehits, I would slightly prefer the Hybrid, but a close call there. For powder, too close to call, but if I had to make a call I’d probably say Hybrid.

            Reply
            • Peter says

              November 9, 2020 at 2:03 pm

              Awesome, that definitely helps me further narrow it down. Appreciate the feedback and the great resource you’ve created here. All the best, Peter

            • Nate says

              November 10, 2020 at 10:26 am

              You’re very welcome Peter. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with and how you get on, once you get a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!

    67. Vijay says

      September 26, 2020 at 4:57 pm

      Hey Nate, thanks for your help here! I’m 5’9 and 185lbs, currently riding a 159 Jones explorer 2015 but looking for an upgrade. I board mostly here at big white so lots of powder and trees but like to charge pretty hard on the groomers as well… looks like the PYL is way to go, could you suggest a size for me (street shoe is a 9). Also if you know of anything new this year that might be better… thanks!!!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 28, 2020 at 11:12 am

        Hi Vijay

        Thanks for your message.

        I think the PYL would suit what you’re describing well. I think the 159 would be your best bet. If you really wanted to go longer, you could probably get on the 162, but I would be leaning towards the 159 for sure.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
    68. Sam T says

      March 22, 2020 at 9:24 pm

      Thank you for the review! I’m looking for a freeride board that is stable in high speeds, great control in chunky snow, tight turning for trees or steep runs, and has some forgiveness for skidding. I’m an intermediate/advanced rider. PYL sounds great. I was comparing it to the Flagship and Lib Tech BRD. Looks like PYL > Flagship so far – do you know much about the BRD?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 23, 2020 at 2:21 pm

        Hi Sam T

        I think the PYL would be a great option for what you’re describing. The Flagship would certainly work too, though.

        I haven’t ridden the BRD, so I can’t compare to that unfortunately.

        You could also check out the following, if you were wanting more options, but the PYL would certainly cover everything you’re describing, IMO:

        >> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards

        Reply
    69. Ross says

      February 16, 2020 at 9:12 pm

      Nate: Pretty amazing how you answer all these questions – I have never seen anything like it! Here goes: I am 6’2″ , 195 lbs, size 10.5 (Burton), riding 25 years, mostly Whistler and mostly with skiers. My last 2 boards were Custom X’s and I also have a powder board (DumpTruck) but it cannot do anything but powder. I am leaning towards buying a Yes PYL or Hybrid as the write-ups look like something that fits. In your opinion, which Yes board is better on ice: PYL or Hybrid? And which of these two would be better on occasional mogul runs? Thanks if you have any thoughts!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 18, 2020 at 8:18 pm

        Hi Ross

        Thanks for your message.

        I would say that the PYL is a little quicker edge-to-edge, but the Hybrid I didn’t find to be slugish in that sense, so long as you can find a suitable size – it has very limited sizing. But for you, I think you would get on well with the 157. Sizing down with the extra width that it has will allow you to get back some of the agility that is lost in the wider board. I liked the 157 size (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10). The 161 is doable for you as well, but I think you might find it more slugish for moguls.

        For the PYL, the 162 is probably your best bet.

        I would say they are both as good as each other in icy conditions – and they are both very good, in my experience.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Ross says

          February 20, 2020 at 1:27 pm

          You da man. Thanks Nate!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 21, 2020 at 3:11 pm

            Thanks man – and you’re very welcome. Happy riding!

            Reply
    70. Johan says

      February 16, 2020 at 7:45 am

      Hi Nate! Awesome review, as always.

      Seek your advice.. Think i´ve decided that the PYL is gonna be my next board. Currently riding a 17/18 Skeleton Key 158, witch i love when the conditions are right. Problem is though they seldom are (in Europe nowadays) and when the snow is hard the Skeleton Key can’t really be trusted. The edge hold isn’t that good and I really have to dial back my turning. No fun. I mainly freeride in the French alps coupled with 1 or 2 resort trips and the last 2 years the snow has been really varied, some powder here and there but mostly hardpack and lots of icy patches. So therefore i think i´ll add a PYL to enjoy every condition with. Just can´t decide on length. I´m 185 cm, 80-83 kg, mainly looking to ride it in powder, trees, off pist, fresh groomers, hardpack. But No park. Thinking about pairing it upp with the Now Drive bindings and my size 11 Vans Verse. Stuck between a 159 (too narrow?), a 160 wide or the 162. I´m not an expert but consider myself to be an advanced rider with som limitations.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 18, 2020 at 7:51 pm

        Hi Johan

        Thanks for your message. Apologies for the late reply – it’s demo season, so I’m in the mountains testing 2021 gear most of the time at the moment (can’t complain, of course!).

        For the PYL for you, I would go 160W. I think that would be a very good size for your specs. The 159 is likely too narrow and even the 162 is probably too narrow. And the 160W isn’t that wide for a wide, so I think it would work perfectly width-wise, and is also a great length for you, IMO. If I was you I would be going 160W.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Johan says

          February 19, 2020 at 3:55 am

          Thanks for the reply Nate!

          Was kind of hoping you would have said the 162. Not sure why but maybe I’m a bit concerned that you loose a little of the boards original designed ride/feeling and agility when going wide? That the ride with the wide board is different from one with the regular width specs? That it behaves a little different? Having said that I’m hoping I’m completely wrong as I have never ridden a wide board before? Perhaps it does behave a little different but depending on boot size it´s either a good or bad thing and my size 11 Vans Verse actually suits and complements the wide alternative rather brilliant?

          /Johan

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 19, 2020 at 4:36 pm

            Hi Johan

            Yeah I would say that the wide version only changes the original feel of the ride, if it’s not a good width for your boots. Typically the sidecut doesn’t change because of the wider waist, so you’re just starting out with a wider platform. If you’re riding a wider board with boots (or more accurately, feet) that are too short for that width, then it certainly changes the ride, but with 11s on the 160W, I think that would be a good match, IMO.

            Reply
            • Johan says

              February 20, 2020 at 9:59 am

              Ok, makes sense! Thanks Nate! Gonna buy next years PYL 160W. Another question: saw some previews of next years line of YES boards from Rock on on Snow and ISPO and on those pictures the Optimistic and PYL had the same graphics as this years models. That can´t be right? Every other model had updated graphics except for those two. What do you make of that?

            • Nate says

              February 21, 2020 at 3:00 pm

              Hi Johan

              It’s very rare that a graphic stays the same as a previous year’s model, but it does happen sometimes, but I haven’t seen that from YES previously. But their catalog is also showing the same graphic for the 2021 PYL and Optimistic, so I’m not sure. I don’t get hold of 2021 YES models until the first week of March, so I won’t know for sure until then (I hope to get on the 2021 PYL, so I’ll be able to confirm it then). The only thing I can think of at this moment, is that potentially they hadn’t finalized the new graphic at the time of the catalog printing, which might also mean that the demo model I get might have the old graphic. But there is the chance that they’re just re-using the 2020 graphic.

            • Johan says

              February 25, 2020 at 6:57 am

              Hi again Nate! Just got a mail from YES customer service confirming that the PYL and Optimistic will be a complete carry over from this season to the next. Apparently they have “received a lot of great feedback on this years liveries”. Weird. And disappointing as a find this years graphics on the PYL to be quite dull. And in fact I’ve seen several people on different forums describing how they didn’t pull the trigger on this years model because they didn’t liked the design and instead waited for next years. Bummer.

            • Nate says

              February 26, 2020 at 2:35 pm

              Hi Johan

              Thanks for the update and the info. Good to know. But yeah, definitely weird. Very seldom see the same graphic repeat. I know Rossignol did it with their XV for a couple of years. But I can’t think of too many examples that I know of. Often graphics are quite similar but not very often the same.

    71. Federico says

      January 17, 2020 at 4:49 pm

      Hello Nate,
      Love your reviews, thanks for helping us out!
      I have been riding a Burton Sherlock for quite some time, I think I got it when it was released back in 2011 or so. I love it and have loads of fun with it, though I think it is time to renew my board and get something more updated.
      I weight 71kg and I would say I am an intermediate/advanced rider.
      I don’t have experience riding other boards so can’t compare. I love powder and playing off piste. I ride mostly in Pyrenees in Europe and don’t have always powder off course, so I also enjoy carving in the groomers and going fast and controlled. I usually don’t go to parks, though I can enjoy half pipe just surfing up and down the walls and an occasional small jump.
      I find the Sherlock most enjoyable for all these, mainly off piste, though I find it does not have much grip / edge control on harder snow and tends to slip away when you press too hard…I thought it had to do mainly with my technique (or lack of it 😉 , but reading some reviews, that Burton hybrid camber (or however you call it) might have something to do with it also.
      My intention is to have just one board.
      So I am looking for something that is at least as good and fun to ride in powder/off piste as Sherlock but has better grip / edge control on hard snow and is fun for carving when the conditions are such you spend the whole day in the groomers.
      Considering this, I came across the YES PYL and the BURTON FLIGHT ATTENDANT.

      – do you think they are good choices for what I am looking for?
      – If so, can you help me decide? What are the key differences I would notice when riding both?
      – Even though I love Burton brand, my concern is that the FA will be more of the same regarding grip / edge control on harder snow.
      – Any other board you think I should look at? Still confused if I should also look at All Mountain boards besides free ride.

      Thanks a lot for your help and hope you are enjoying the season!

      Federico

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 20, 2020 at 1:25 pm

        Hi Federico

        Thanks for your message.

        For how you describe your riding, I think the FA and PYL could work. So long as you know, and think you want, something a little stiffer compared to the Sherlock. You could go either all-mountain or freeride. There are boards in both that would give you what you’re after (at least as good in powder but better carving and better edge hold). The All-Mountain options tend to be softer and the Freeride options tend to be stiffer – but there are softer freeride and stiffer all-mountain too.

        Some key differences between the FA and the PYL:

        – The PYL is a little more forgiving, a little less camber dominant vs the FA. If you wanted that real camber feel, then FA, but if you wanted that bit more forgiveness, the PYL is just that little bit more forgiving. But FA isn’t completely unforgiving either – but just comparing the 2.
        – I found I preferred the PYL a little in terms of uneven terrain and jumps, but otherwise the performance is very good on both for powder, carving and speed

        I would say that the PYL is better vs the FA in hard/icy snow conditions. But the FA certainly better the Sherlock in that sense. The Sherlock’s Flying V (Hybrid Rocker) is quite a loose feeling camber profile, particularly in hard/icy conditions. So either way you would see improvement there – just a little more so with the PYL, IMO.

        So yeah, I think those would be good options, if you’re happy to go stiffer. If you’re looking to stay more in that medium flex range, let me know, and I can give you some good options there.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Federico says

          January 21, 2020 at 10:49 am

          Thanks Nate! Very helpfull indeed.

          Regarding stiffness I would appreciate some guidance, as I don’t have much riding experience beyond Sherlock. What will feel different in going from Sherlock to any of these two in terms of riding due to increased stiffness?

          It would definetly help if you give me good options for med flex boards so I have a look.

          Great to have you there!

          Thanks

          Reply
          • Federico says

            January 22, 2020 at 7:20 am

            Adding to my previous post, I feel kind of stuck in my progress with the Sherlock…in particular carving…maybe a stiffer board is the way to go to improve my riding?

            Reply
            • Nate says

              January 22, 2020 at 12:02 pm

              Hi Federico

              Firstly, in terms of stiffness. Going with a stiffer board will do a couple of things mainly. Firstly, it tends to increase stability at speed. The other thing it does is help to improve carves, particularly harder/deeper carves and higher speed carving. It does make things harder in terms of buttering and typically maneuverability at slower speeds is lessened. In terms of pop, it often means that the pop is harder to extract but can also mean more pop when you put the effort into it. For pop and carves particularly, the addition of more camber also improves these things – so going from the less camber and softer flex of the Sherlock to one of the FA or PYL, there will be added stiffness and camber.

              There would certainly be an adjustment, but if improving your carving is what you’re looking to do, then one of these two are, IMO, going to be worlds ahead of the Sherlock in that respect, but will just take some getting used to.

              If you wanted something that was less of adjustment, you could go with something with more camber than the Sherlock but a more similar flex. Keeping in mind that you still want it to go well in powder/off groomer, I think the following would be good softer flexing freeride or all-mountain options, but still give you more in terms of carving and stability at speed.

              – Burton Skeleton Key
              – YES Hybrid
              – Capita Mercury
              – YES Standard
              – Jones Mountain Twin
              – Nitro Team Gullwing
              – Rossignol One LF

              These won’t necessarily give you the carving/speed/powder abilities of the PYL and FA, but just some options, if you felt you didn’t want to go too much stiffer. This lot will probably still feel a little stiffer than your Sherlock, but more subtly than the PYL/FA.

              If you want to check out more details for each of the above, if you were considering them, there are reviews for each on the website.

            • Federico says

              January 23, 2020 at 1:45 pm

              Woww Nate, you are opening a world to me, thanks!

              For everything you describe, I think I will go for PYL. I will have a look anyway at the reviews of the other boards you mention and come back to you if I have questions.

              Thanks, you do a great job!

            • Nate says

              January 24, 2020 at 1:30 pm

              You’re very welcome Federico. Hope you’re having a great season!

            • Federico says

              February 9, 2020 at 4:05 pm

              Hi Nate,

              Here I am again. I have been considering what you told me in your last reply regarding board stiffness and reading your reviews of the softer boards you suggested and researching a bit more, and I think it will be better for me not to go that stiffer. I am not riding that often and as you say, stiffer will mean I will have to make adjustments to my riding amongst other things. I’d rather enjoy and have a bit more of a forgiving all mountain board, and the YES Standard seems great for that and should be a nice improvement compared to my current Sherlock in many ways, right?
              I would appreciate your help with board size, as there seem to be a few options for the YES Standard that fit my weight and not sure how to choose.
              Weight: 71 Kg
              Height: 1.77m
              Boot size: 10 US

              Also if you can recommend me good bindings for this board would be great. I read something about not having mini disks so that you can place them all the way back during powder days.

              Thanks again for your time and help!

              Federico

            • Nate says

              February 11, 2020 at 11:54 am

              Hi Federico

              Yeah the Standard would certainly be an improvement over the Sherlock for what you’re looking for, IMO. And certainly a bit softer flexing than the PYL.

              In terms of using a mini-disc. You can use it on most of the stance options on the Standard. But if you want to set it into the “slam back” inserts, then you can’t – so you can’t get the full benefits of using those slam back inserts (which give you a greater setback for powder days) with a mini-disc.

              Size-wise, I would usually say something around 156, but for this board I would go 153 for you. It’s a slightly wider board, so I find sizing down is a good idea in those cases, if it’s wide for your boots. I would usually ride around a 159 for an all-mountain board like this, but I like the Standard in the 156 (183cm, 85kg, US10 boots). So, I think you would like it most in the 153.

              In terms of bindings, something that matches the flex or just a touch stiffer would be what I would do – so something around 6/10 or 7/10 flex. Check out the following for some good options:

              >>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings

              >>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings

              Note that the Union Strata & K2 Lien AT from the first list and the Union Falcor from the second list, all use mini-discs.

    72. Jago says

      September 8, 2019 at 2:44 am

      Hi Nate. Thanks for your great reviews. That and all The answers you gave to so many questions, have me bought the Pyl 165.

      I’m 175 97 kilo. Working on reducing this.

      162 would probably been fine. I had a jones hovercraft 160 befor.

      But I wander. Everybody gives their body weight. But this doesn’t include equipment and clothing. Do the manufacturers keep this in mind or Should we look for a board body weight + 4-5 kilo equipment????

      Thanks

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 9, 2019 at 10:26 am

        Hi Jago

        Thanks for your message.

        From the brands that I’ve spoken with the weight recommendations are for body weight. As in weight without gear. So that’s what I go off for the site. But yeah very good question, as body weight vs actual weight you are putting on the board can be quite different. Glad you’re enjoying the new board – and hope you have an awesome season, this coming winter!

        Reply
    73. Ricky says

      September 5, 2019 at 11:48 pm

      Hi Nate,

      Thanks so much for your reviews, I’ve been boarding for years now and currently riding an old 2008 Salomon Acid 155.

      Definitely time to upgrade and narrowed my choice down to the PYL; GNU Mullair; Burton FA

      I’m approx 175cm tall and weigh about 95kgs, boot size is 44 euro (10.5 US i think?)

      Most of my boarding is located in Australia and have always steered clear of parks (never been a fan) & would like something stable at fast speeds; grips well in icy conditions; great for carving and some off piste tree runs (Japan/NZ hopefully in the near future).

      You’re review of the PYL has me leaning more towards that board, but can’t figure out what would be the best size that would suit me, are you able to help?

      Thanks in advance!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 6, 2019 at 2:01 pm

        Hi Ricky

        Thanks for your message.

        Size-wise for the PYL, I would say the 162 would be your best bet based on what you’re describing, if you would describe yourself as an advanced rider. If you would say closer to intermediate – or you don’t want to step up too much in size from your current board, then 159 might be more appropriate. 160W is also an option and worth considering if you like to euro carve or similar. But I would be leaning towards the 162 for you.

        Hope this helps with your decision

        Reply
        • Jago says

          September 7, 2019 at 1:12 pm

          Hi Nate. Thanks to your review i bought The pyl 165. In 1.74 95-97 kg. Above you adviced an 1.62 But when ppl give their weight. It’s never with all equipment. My clothes boots and backpack with camelback would probably be 4-5 kilo extra. Shouldn’t we take that in account?

          Think it’s great what your doing with answering all these questions. This is really helpful. And I’m really happy with my new board.

          Gr jago from Holland

          Reply
          • Nate says

            September 9, 2019 at 10:25 am

            Hi Jago

            See my reply below

            Reply
    74. Matt says

      September 3, 2019 at 3:52 pm

      Hi Nate!
      Firstly, thanks so much for all the reviews and guides you do.
      In your opinion what would be a better size PYL for me. I am getting the PYL as a powder board for Japan, and for carving back home in Australia (snow can be hard and icy). I enjoy tree runs and side hits. My other board is a more freestyle/all-mountain 157.5 GNU riders choice 2012.

      Height: 188cm, 6’2″
      Weight: 83-85kg
      Boot size: US 10.5 (RIDE)

      Currently I think everywhere is sold out of the 165, so I am tossing up between the 164w, 162 or the 160w. What do you think?

      Thanks again!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 4, 2019 at 12:21 pm

        Hi Matt

        Thanks for your message. First of all, I think the PYL is a great choice to cover what you’re describing – and a good compliment to the Rider’s Choice.

        Size-wise, I think the 162 is your best choice. It’s a good length and width for you, IMO. The 165 would be doable too and if that was available that’s what I would be weighing up – the 162 vs the 165. However, I would go 162 for you, because I think it would be the better balance to cover tree runs and sidehits and for both powder and hard/icy conditions. If you were going to be predominantly using it in powder/to bomb open terrain, then I might lean towards 165 for you, but in this case I would go 162. And it’s enough of a contrast to your 157.5 Rider’s Choice too, IMO.

        The 164W is probably wider than ideal, IMO. The 162 should be fine width-wise, IMO. I rode the 159 with a -6 angle on the back foot and US10 Vans Boots. The width at the back insert on the 159 is 260mm. I had zero issues with drag. The width on the back insert on the 162 is likely around 262-263mm, and with Ride (which are quite low profile) 10.5s, I’d say you shouldn’t have any issues. If you ride with like a completely straight back binding angle and really like euro carving, then you might want to consider the 160W or potentially even 164W, but in most scenarios, I think you will be fine width-wise on the 162 – and that’s the length i would go with for you.

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
    75. Anton says

      August 7, 2019 at 4:27 pm

      Hi Nate! I’m thinking of buying PYL and I have a question about which size should I get. I’m 185 cm tall, 80-85 kg and I use US 10,5 Ride Anthem boots (might switch them to 10’s some day in future). I buy this mostly for occasional Japan pow trips, groomers, eurocarve and riding in trees. So it’s a bit tricky to choose between being agile in trees and being able to eurocarve without toe drag..

      What size would you recommend? What I understood, they would suggest 160W for me but I want to get your opinion on this before purchase.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        August 8, 2019 at 10:23 am

        Hi Anton

        Thanks for your message.

        Yeah definitely a weigh up between that maneuverability in trees and being sure of no toe drag, if you’re Eurocarving. The 159, 160W and 162 are all possibilities. In your case I think the 160W is probably your best bet.

        Between the 159 and 162 – you could go up to 162 for your specs – and that would give more stability at speed and better float in powder and would give you a little more width over the 159. The 159 would be more agile in trees though. I personally prefer the 159 (183cm, 84kg, US10 boots) – but I tend to go a little shorter than what my specs suggest, have 1/2 size down in boots and don’t tend to Eurocarve.

        The 160W brings you down in length a little from the 162 (which helps to make up for loss of maneuverability for going wider). You loose a little in terms of stability at speed (assuming your on an edge when flying) but prob has as much or maybe more in terms of surface area for powder – so you don’t loose out there. And with that extra little bit of length, you can be more confident Eurocarving. But without being ultra wide either. The 160W will have roughly 267mm at the back inserts and 270mm at the front inserts. This isn’t that wide for 10.5s. In fact I’d say it’s a really good width, so you shouldn’t loose too much in terms of agility due to width on it, IMO. I find anything up to 265mm at the inserts is good for me – and that’s with 10s, which would translate to up to 270mm for 10.5s, so I think you’re good there.

        You could certainly ride the 159 and 162, but given all the facts in your particular situation, I’d say that 160W is your best bet.

        Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

        Reply
        • Anton says

          September 4, 2019 at 1:45 pm

          Hi Nate,

          Thanks alot of your opinion, I really appreciate it and all the time you put into helping us!

          So I’m looking for the 160W. Just waiting for them to drop into European dealers.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            September 5, 2019 at 3:54 pm

            You’re very welcome Anton. Hope you have a great season when winter rolls around!

            Reply
    76. Norbert says

      July 23, 2019 at 3:19 am

      Hi Nate,

      First off all, mamy thanks for your reviews. You’re doing really great job helping us.
      I’m pretty sure that I’ve read all of your site, including comments 🙂

      At last, I bought Union Falcor bindings. I am 6’2″, cirka 220lbs foot 11,5 US/295mm (Nitro Venture Pro boots)
      I was hunting for PYL and was thinking about waiting till 164W come to the market but last night I found a real bargain on 165 and bought it on the spur of the moment.
      Now I’m afraid if it was a mistake and sending it back to the UK from Poland would be problematic and costly.
      I’d really appreciate your advice.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        July 23, 2019 at 2:52 pm

        Hi Norbert

        Thanks for your message.

        On the safe side, I would have recommended the 164W with 11.5 boots. The 165 is going to be on the narrow side. That said, you could get away with it. With binding angles like +15/-15 I think you’d likely be OK – but those probably aren’t the most likely binding angles you would use with this particular board. But if those are the angles, then I don’t think you should have too many issues. With low profile boots, I think you would be OK on straighter angles too. I don’t test Nitro gear, so I can’t say first hand what the profile is like on Nitro boots, but from what I hear from others, the impression I get is that they aren’t overly long or overly low profile.

        So, I think you’ll probably get away with it, but it’s a close call – so no guarantees, especially if you like to get really deep on your carves.

        Technically speaking if your boots are around 32.5cm long (taking the mondo of 29.5 and adding 3cm for an average profile), then you’re looking at roughly 5.6cm of total overhang for a boot straight across the board (based on the 165 PYL being around 26.9cm wide at the inserts – measured across the base of the board (estimated based on measuring the 159 PYL)). So that’s 2.8cm of overhang per edge, assuming perfect centering. On the safe side, I recommend it to be around 2cm on each edge, but that is conservative and I often ride with more than that. Also, if you were to have a little more overhang on the heel edge vs the toe edge, that could help too – given that it’s easier to get higher on the toe edge and therefore toe drag is more likely than heel drag.

        Also check out:

        >>Picking the Best Width for a Snowboard

        Hope this helps

        Reply
    77. Taylor says

      April 21, 2019 at 12:45 pm

      Hey 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).

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 22, 2019 at 2:34 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    78. Chris says

      March 20, 2019 at 7:14 pm

      Hey 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 21, 2019 at 1:07 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    79. Ole says

      February 26, 2019 at 3:40 am

      Hi 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 26, 2019 at 3:11 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Ole says

          February 27, 2019 at 12:24 am

          Thanks!
          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?

          Reply
          • Nate says

            February 27, 2019 at 2:32 pm

            Hi 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

            Reply
            • Ole says

              March 21, 2019 at 12:09 pm

              Hi,
              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 am

              Hi 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

    80. Franck says

      February 17, 2019 at 9:47 am

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 18, 2019 at 11:42 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Franck says

          February 28, 2019 at 2:00 pm

          Hi 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

          Reply
          • Nate says

            March 1, 2019 at 10:01 am

            Hi 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

            Reply
    81. Kyle says

      February 7, 2019 at 2:42 pm

      Hey 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        February 8, 2019 at 11:26 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    82. Federico says

      January 30, 2019 at 12:39 pm

      Hi 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.

      Reply
    83. Federico says

      January 30, 2019 at 10:59 am

      Hi 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.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 31, 2019 at 10:28 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    84. Dave says

      January 24, 2019 at 11:36 pm

      Hey 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 25, 2019 at 11:25 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Dave says

          January 25, 2019 at 5:25 pm

          Great, 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

          Reply
          • Nate says

            January 26, 2019 at 10:16 am

            Hi 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

            Reply
    85. Mike says

      December 3, 2018 at 11:38 pm

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 4, 2018 at 11:17 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Mike says

          December 8, 2018 at 6:52 am

          Thanks 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.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            December 8, 2018 at 5:46 pm

            Hi 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

            Reply
            • Mike says

              January 26, 2019 at 2:50 pm

              Sorry 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 pm

              Hi 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

    86. Serg says

      December 1, 2018 at 1:26 pm

      Hi 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 3, 2018 at 10:34 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    87. Mike says

      December 1, 2018 at 10:57 am

      Hi 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?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 1, 2018 at 1:22 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    88. Andy says

      November 23, 2018 at 10:22 pm

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 25, 2018 at 10:11 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    89. John says

      November 23, 2018 at 8:08 am

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 23, 2018 at 4:43 pm

        Hi 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.

        Reply
        • John says

          November 24, 2018 at 4:32 pm

          Thank you very much Nate!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 25, 2018 at 10:18 am

            You’re very welcome John. Hope you have an awesome season!

            Reply
    90. Louis M says

      November 16, 2018 at 2:10 am

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 16, 2018 at 12:54 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    91. Loren says

      November 5, 2018 at 2:27 pm

      about 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 ?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 6, 2018 at 10:55 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    92. Loren says

      November 5, 2018 at 12:21 pm

      hi 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

      Reply
    93. Jake says

      September 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm

      Hey 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 26, 2018 at 11:02 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Jake says

          September 26, 2018 at 7:36 pm

          You 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!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            September 27, 2018 at 10:07 am

            You’re very welcome Jake. Thanks for visiting the site and for your kind words! Hope you have an awesome season this coming winter!

            Reply
    94. Matt says

      August 3, 2018 at 11:15 am

      Looking 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?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        August 4, 2018 at 8:49 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    95. Louis M says

      March 30, 2018 at 11:04 am

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        April 2, 2018 at 9:28 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Louis M says

          April 7, 2018 at 6:45 am

          Hi 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).

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 9, 2018 at 5:37 pm

            Hi 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.

            Reply
    96. Vitaliy says

      March 19, 2018 at 3:30 pm

      Hi 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?

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 20, 2018 at 9:09 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    97. John McKinlay says

      January 26, 2018 at 10:37 pm

      Hello 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 27, 2018 at 9:50 am

        Hi 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

        Reply
    98. Greg says

      January 12, 2018 at 7:54 am

      Nate,
      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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        January 12, 2018 at 7:38 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    99. Alex says

      December 28, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      Hi 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 29, 2017 at 8:15 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    100. Alec says

      December 27, 2017 at 3:31 am

      Thanks 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 27, 2017 at 10:38 am

        Hi 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!

        Reply
    101. Alec says

      December 20, 2017 at 1:49 am

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        December 20, 2017 at 2:09 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    102. robert says

      November 20, 2017 at 5:57 am

      HI 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 20, 2017 at 3:02 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    103. Tobi says

      November 15, 2017 at 12:54 pm

      Hey 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 16, 2017 at 3:38 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Dexter says

          November 17, 2017 at 4:26 pm

          I 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.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 18, 2017 at 12:49 pm

            Thanks Dexter! Great to hear someone elses take on this.

            Reply
          • Tobi says

            November 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm

            Thanks 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

            Reply
            • Tobias says

              December 4, 2017 at 5:43 am

              Hey!

              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 pm

              Hi 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.

    104. Devon Magnuson says

      November 13, 2017 at 10:27 pm

      Hi 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
        • Devon Magnuson says

          November 15, 2017 at 1:42 pm

          Hi 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

          Reply
          • Nate says

            November 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm

            You’re very welcome Devon. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new gear! Sounds like a great setup to me.

            Reply
    105. Jonne says

      October 25, 2017 at 6:32 am

      Hi 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 25, 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Hi 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.

        Reply
        • Jonne says

          October 26, 2017 at 1:12 am

          Thanks 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.

          Reply
          • Nate says

            October 26, 2017 at 10:34 am

            You’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

            Reply
            • Jonne says

              October 26, 2017 at 12:56 pm

              It 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 am

              Hi 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 am

              Hi 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 am

              Hi 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!

    106. Jonne says

      October 24, 2017 at 3:35 pm

      As 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 25, 2017 at 12:44 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    107. Chris says

      October 1, 2017 at 6:28 am

      Hi 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        October 2, 2017 at 10:51 am

        Hi 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.

        Reply
        • Chris says

          October 2, 2017 at 11:40 am

          Thanks 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!

          Reply
          • Nate says

            October 3, 2017 at 6:56 pm

            You’re very welcome Chris. Hope you love the PYL as much as I did! Have an awesome season

            Reply
            • Chris says

              September 13, 2018 at 8:18 am

              Hi 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 am

              Hi 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.

    108. Chris says

      October 1, 2017 at 2:19 am

      Hi 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!

      Reply
    109. David says

      September 25, 2017 at 7:33 pm

      Nate – 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!

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 26, 2017 at 1:22 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply
    110. Shane says

      September 9, 2017 at 2:06 am

      Hey 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

      Reply
      • Nate says

        September 9, 2017 at 9:45 am

        Hi 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!

        Reply
        • Shane says

          September 9, 2017 at 12:24 pm

          Perfect, 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

          Reply
          • Nate says

            September 10, 2017 at 3:08 pm

            You’re very welcome Shane. Hope you have an awesome season!

            Reply
    111. eze says

      March 10, 2017 at 7:19 pm

      Hi Nate. What do you know about the durability of this board? I heard a couple of people complaining about this

      Reply
      • Nate says

        March 11, 2017 at 9:26 am

        Hi 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.

        Reply
      • Anom says

        March 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

        Hi 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.

        Reply
        • 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,

          Reply
          • Nate says

            April 5, 2017 at 4:43 pm

            Thanks for the update Anom. Good to know that they honor their warranties.

            Reply
    112. Ralph says

      November 10, 2016 at 5:39 am

      Hey 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.

      Reply
      • Nate says

        November 10, 2016 at 8:25 pm

        Hi 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

        Reply

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Follow Snowboarding Profiles

    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    back-to-top

    Recent Comments

    • Nate on Salomon Dancehaul Snowboard Review
    • Nate on Salomon Huck Knife Snowboard Review
    • Nate on Bataleon Goliath Review

    Snowboardingprofiles.com participates in affiliate programs and may earn commissions on products linked to on this site.  More Details

    Snowboardingprofiles.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

    Copyright © 2014–2025 · SnowboardingProfiles.com

    • Home
    • About
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Contact