Hello and welcome to my YES Pick Your Line Review.
In this review I will take a look at the Pick Your Line as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Pick Your Line a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and also see how it compares with other Freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: YES Pick Your Line
Price: $599 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Mid-Stiff (8/10 on YES’s flex scale)
Flex Feel: Mid-Stiff (8/10)
Rating Score: 90.7/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 32 Men’s Freeride snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Pick Your Line’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Pick Your Line’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Freeride |
Price: | $599 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Smooth/Snappy: |  |
Dampness: |  |
Playful/Aggressive: |  |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Camber | 1-4-2 (rocker-camber-rocker) |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | 10mm (0.4") |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Mildly heavier than 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 Pick Your Line Most Suited To?
The Pick Your Line is best suited to an advanced rider who likes their board quite stiff and needs good stability at speed, good float in powder and a board that can carve trenches.
Not well suited to park riding, but if you don't really ride the park, it's a great daily driver if all of the above describes what you're looking for. Or if you have a softer more park/freestyle board in your quiver, this would provide a great compliment.
Not for the beginner. Far too stiff and aggressive for that. You want to be advanced to ride this board - and preferably quite strong or athletic too.
The Pick Your Line in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Pick Your Line is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Pick Your Line (PYL) 2022, 159cm (253mm waist width)
Date: March 23, 2021
Conditions:
Sunny with cloudy patches.
Feels quite warm when the sun came out, but quite cold when it wasn't there or when the wind picked up. Wasn't super windy, but just enough to bring the chill when the sun was behind the clouds.
Temp -3°C (27°F) and -6°C (21°F) with wind chill factor.
24hr snow: 0
48hr snow: 4cm
7 day snow: 46cm
On groomer: Somewhere between medium and hard with some harder spots bordering on icy.
Off groomer: Quite crunchy/icy in patches, not too bad in others - more medium to hard.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 575mm (22.6″)
Stance Setback: Setback 10mm (0.4")
Width at Inserts: 265mm (10.43") at front insert and 263mm (10.35") at back insert
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 3040grams (6lbs 11oz)
Weight per cm: 19.12 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.43 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 100 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021 *& 2022 models. The PYL is a bit heavier than normal. And on snow feels a little heavier than normal too - but very close to normal.
Flex
The 2022 model feels stiffer than previous models. There's nothing that I could find that they've obviously changed with the board. But to me it's stiffened up since the 2019 model. More like an 8/10 flex now, where it felt more like 7.5/10 bordering on 7/10 previously.
Powder
I had a few pockets of powder to test with - nothing serious, but something - and it felt really good in there. Plus previously I've had other models in a little powder too.
And the specs certainly suggest good powder performance too. It only has a 10mm reference setback (which of course can be increased, but the basis is off the reference stance), but the long nose to relatively short tail, makes the overall setback a lot more than that.
That plus a 6mm taper and a decent amount of rocker in the nose all help this board to float nicely in the pow.
Carving & Turning
Carving: This thing really rails a carve. You can just lean so deep into it and it just holds on and at any speeds. Great board for big carves.
Turning: Not as effortless for turns as I remember, but still nice to turn and still pretty easy to turn considering it's stiffness.
Maneuverability at slow speeds (nimbleness): Takes a bit of muscle to turn this board at slower speeds. Not as nimble riding slow as I found the 2019 model.
Skidded Turns: It's non un-skiddable, but can punish you if you get off your game and start skidding out those turns too much. It's not a full camber profile, but there's not a lot of torsional flex going on, so it can punish you, if you're being too lazy.
Speed
Super stable at high speeds. Felt like I could bomb with this confidently at any speed.
Glide on flats isn't amazing. It's not bad either. It's a sintered base, but compared to some other boards, it doesn't glide quite as quickly/far.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Just smashes through it like it's not there. If it were to get bucked around at all, it would take a bit of effort to correct, but I can't confirm that because it just wouldn't be bucked!
Bumps: Not super nimble at slow speeds, so weaving through wasn't effortless, but when you threw some muscle into it it responded in kind. Going over bumps it's not the most "huggy" but handled bumps fine overall.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Stable as anything, but some effort to extract pop and lacking a little forgiveness of errors.
Pop: There's good pop there when you load it up. The pop ceiling is decent. But it's not easy to reach that ceiling. You've got to put in the effort to get it out.
Approach: Super stable and getting wobbly or thrown off your line is never an issue on this board. Not super maneuverable for those more nuanced approaches though - e.g. lining up a trickier to access side hit.
Landing: Solid as it gets. When you nail it, this board certainly ain't going to bounce around. But it comes at the cost of being a bit too unforgiving of errors. If you don't get the landing right, it's not going to help you to hold onto it.
Side-hits: OK, but not great. Would be better if it was more nimble with easier access pop.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Big jumps for sure. And for experienced jumpers. Like everything with this board, if you do it right it rewards you. If you do it wrong it punishes you. It doesn't have a lot of compromise in it.
Switch
Not too bad to ride switch. Borderline 3/5. It's only setback 10mm along the effective edge, so it's not really setback much on effective edge. However, the camber profile is directional, the sidecut is directional and then there's the taper. It certainly doesn't feel ideal riding switch, but it's not undoable either.
Spins
Because it's not ideal setting up or taking off switch, that makes 1s, 5s etc more difficult. Also, the relative hard to access pop means you've really got to load up before the spin to get air - which is fine for bigger tricks, but when you're trying to spin off small jumps/side hits, it's a little trickier. Also, whilst it's not super heavy, it's also not super light.
Butters
It's not un-butterable, but it certainly takes some muscling. It's not an effortless butterer - you'd want some good weight and strength if you want to be buttering with this board.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.0 | 12/15 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 6/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.7/100 |
The PYL is a lot of board. Even more so than it felt in the past.
It's the kind of board that rewards you in spades, when you do everything right and give it the kind of energy it needs. But it's one that doesn't compromise. If you get it wrong or get lazy, it's not going to be super forgiving.
For anyone looking for a hard charging board that's a carving machine and also need powder performance and good edge-hold in hard/icy conditions, the PYL has got your back.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
Check out the links below for more info on the Pick Your Line, where to buy or if you are researching prices or available sizes.
If your keen to check out some other Freeride options or to see how the Pick Your Line compares to other freeride decks check out the link below.
Hello and welcome to my YES Pick Your Line Review.
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Pick Your Line is capable of.
Hello and welcome to my YES Pick Your Line Review.
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
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
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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!
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
Thanks Nate! Guess I’ll just find whichever one with a better price option. Really enjoyed reading your reviews!
You’re very welcome Peter. Happy riding!
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!
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
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.
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
Very helpful, thank you Nate.
You’re very welcome Geoff. Happy riding!
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
Hi Rasheed
Thanks for the update. Would love to hear what you think of the new 160W compared to the old 164W.
Will do.
-Rasheed
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
Thank you for your comment. Maybe for my needs Yes Hybrid would be a better option? What do you think?
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.
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
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.
Which boards is more forgiving? Pyl or bsod?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
Thanks for the detailed answer
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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
It really helped me!! Thank you very much!
You’re very welcome Ezequiel.
And what about the 164w?
Would that be too much of a board for me?
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.
would this board be good for heli boarding free ride ?
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
Hi Nate. Do you happen to know the edge angle of the PYL? Thanks!
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.
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?
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
hey nate thanks for replying,
i have salomon dialogue 10.5
+15 -3
not deep not shallow?
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.
hey nate,
What happened to my comment from yesterday?
Hi Arek
All comments are moderated. I have approved and replied to your comment now.
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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!
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
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!
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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!
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
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
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
Many thanks for your reply, it really help me to make a choice!
I’m 177 cm (5’8″)
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.
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:)
You’re very welcome Ivan. Look forward to hearing how you get on.
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!!
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
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?
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
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.
You’re very welcome Tad
Thanks for the height details. Doesn’t change the sizing opinions from above.
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!
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
How about the Yes Hybrid 157, would that be much of an upgrade in powder, or any other aspects?
Thanks again for the advice
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.
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!
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
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!
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
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)?
(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?
Update – the 8 feels tight on the toes & 8.5 may be the ticket strangely.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Awesome, that definitely helps me further narrow it down. Appreciate the feedback and the great resource you’ve created here. All the best, Peter
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!
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!!!
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
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?
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
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!
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
You da man. Thanks Nate!
Thanks man – and you’re very welcome. Happy riding!
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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!
You’re very welcome Federico. Hope you’re having a great season!
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
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.
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
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!
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!
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
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
Hi Jago
See my reply below
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!
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
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.
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
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.
You’re very welcome Anton. Hope you have a great season when winter rolls around!
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.
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
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).
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
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!
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
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!
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
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?
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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!
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
Thank you very much Nate!
You’re very welcome John. Hope you have an awesome season!
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
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
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 ?
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
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
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
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
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!
You’re very welcome Jake. Thanks for visiting the site and for your kind words! Hope you have an awesome season this coming winter!
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?
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
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
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
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).
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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!
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Thanks Dexter! Great to hear someone elses take on this.
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
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!
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.
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
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
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
You’re very welcome Devon. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new gear! Sounds like a great setup to me.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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!
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!
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
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!
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.
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!
You’re very welcome Chris. Hope you love the PYL as much as I did! Have an awesome season
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…
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.
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!
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!
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
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
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!
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
You’re very welcome Shane. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate. What do you know about the durability of this board? I heard a couple of people complaining about this
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.
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.
*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,
Thanks for the update Anom. Good to know that they honor their warranties.
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.
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