When I look at the YES Standard and the Standard Uninc, I think, there's not too much difference between these two boards on paper, apart from the camber profile. But when you get them out on snow, there's definitely more to it than just camber.
The Standard is the epitome of do-anything-anywhere-anytime and that might be all you need to know (but.... still keep reading for more details :-)).
In this review, I will take a look at the Standard as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Standard a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: YES Standard 2025
Price: $549
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 91.6/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Of the 30 current model all-mountain snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Standard ranked 1st out of 30
Overview of the Standard’ Specs
Check out the tables for the Standard’s specs and available sizes.
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN
PRICE:
$549 - BUYING OPTIONS
$549 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID CAMBER
HYBRID Camber - YES's "Camrock" 3-4-3 (rocker-camber-rocker).
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
Sintered
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
5.5mm
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
149 | 245 | 120-160 | 54-73 |
151 | 248 | 120-180 | 54-82 |
153 | 253 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
156 | 258 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
159 | 263 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
162 | 268 | 180-220+ | 82-100+ |
167 | 266 | 180-220+ | 82-100+ |
Who is the Standard Most Suited To?
The Standard is best suited to someone who wants the ultimate, IMO, do-it-all board. For those who have a very eclectic style but want to have a one-board quiver, this is the best that I've found to serve that purpose - so long as you're at least an intermediate rider.
Not quite beginner easy to ride, but still nice and easy ride, yet still isn't bad at speed or for carving, despite that.
Standard DetailS
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Standard is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Standard 2025, 156cm (258mm waist width)
Date: February 13, 2024
Powder
Felt good in what I could find, but never found enough to get a sustained feeling. But from past experience on this board and based on specs, it performs pretty well in powder. It's never going to be a powder destroyer, but it's also not going to destroy you in powder!
There is some pretty healthy rocker in the tip and tail and while the nose isn't longer than the tail, it does have more surface area - not because of a wider contact point, but through it's shaping. It's subtle but it does help a little.
There is also no setback, but if you take advantage of the slam back inserts, it should go pretty well in powder.
Carving
It's not a world beater when it comes to carving, but still pretty decent. And can carve at relatively high speeds without feeling too washy.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: For a board that manages to be as decent as it as for carving, it is surprisingly easy to turn/slash. It really takes very little effort, making it really versatile whether you want to ride it slower/more casually or get a little faster/more aggressive on it.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, for a board that handle a decent amount of speed, it's one of the more agile boards at slow speed.
Catchiness: If I really felt for it, I could detect a very subtle feel like it could catch the tail in some situations, but it's really minimal.
Speed
It's decently stable at speed. It has its limits, but I felt pretty comfortable driving it at reasonably fast speeds, without it feeling too wobbly.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Did a good job. Not immune to getting bucked around and not super damp but also not super chattery. And when it did get bucked around, making line adjustments was nice and easy.
Trees/Bumps: Felt so confident with this in tight spaces and felt decent in the little powder patches I had in the trees too.
Jumps
Sick for jumps! Not super poppy in terms of total pop, but otherwise is just that perfect in between of being easy to pop and ollie and the perfect balance between stability and maneuverability.
Pop: As eluded to above, it has nice and easy to access pop. There's more there when you wind it up, but not epic total pop.
Approach: The perfect balance of being stable enough to pick your line and go for it and stable enough for larger jumps, but also nice and easy to maneuver or speed check without throwing you out of whack and aborting.
Landing: Again, strikes that nice middle-ground of being forgiving of off landings, the ability to maneuver and speed check when needed after landing, but also being solid enough to stomp the landing on most size jumps.
Side-hits: So much fun! That easy pop and maneuverability help - and you can send it on bigger side-hits too.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Everything really, depending on your skill level and risk level.
Switch
Transitions to/from switch are smooth and easy and feels basically the same riding in both directions.
Spins
So good. Great balance of being easy to setup, not over spinning (ok maybe a touch) but easy to finish an incomplete spin on the snow. Easy access pop and decent enough total pop.
Jibbing
Not my ideal jibbing board but still really good. I was confident to do the limited things I can do on boxes/rails on it.
Butters
For how the board performs everywhere else, you'd think there'd be something that it doesn't do that well. Is that thing butters? Nope, it butters really nicely. It's pretty easy to flex the tip and tail and you can lock it in without threat of over-flexing (unless maybe you're riding a size too small for you).
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| Factor | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Powder | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 4 | 8/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Crud | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Trees | 4 | 8/10 |
| Switch | 4 | 8/10 |
| Jumps | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 4/5 |
| Butters | 4 | 4/5 |
| Rails | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 91.6/100 |
The Standard really is The Standard for do-it-all, in my opinion and experience.
There's nothing that doesn't feel fun on this board and there's nothing that it struggles with. It's really good in icy conditions, hard and soft groomers, uneven terrain, and even decent in powder. And you can ride it any way you want. And has that indescribable x-factor that I just can't put my finger on.
Every time I get on this board, I expect that it won't wow me quite the same as it did the previous time I rode it. But so far it's never failed to get me excited and it's always succeeded in making me reluctant to unstrap from it.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
To learn more about the Standard, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below:
To check out some other all-mountain snowboard options, or to see how the Standard compares to others, check out our top rated all-mountain snowboards by clicking the button below.
Hi Nate,
This is my 4th season riding and i would like to step up from my Nitro prime (158)
I am 178cm tall and I weigh cca 85 kgs.
As you listed Yes standard and Jones MT as no 1. and no. 2. I would like to get one of those.
I was thinking to get Yes standard (156) but i would really like to hear your opinion.
Keep up the great work you’ve been doing !
Hi Adam, thanks for your message
Both the Standard and MT would be great choices, IMO, both a good step up from the Prime, without being a step too far.
Some things to consider, as mentioned in the previous reply:
– I would say the Standard is just a touch more playful than the MT but it’s pretty close. Both are a good balance between playful and aggressive.
– The Standard has a small advantage in powder, IMO, just because of the extra distance you can set back on a powder day with the slam back inserts. If you didn’t think you’d bother moving your bindings on a pow day, then it negates that advantage, but it’s there if you want it.
– Standard slightly better in icy conditions, in my experience, but the MT is good in icy conditions too.
– MT a little more stable in crud, in my experience, but again it’s a subtle difference.
Also if you’re doing any freestyle stuff, I slightly prefer the Standard for jumps and rails – again a subtle difference though.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 159. However with these boards it will depend on your boot size. For the Standard, if you have anything that’s 10.5 or below boot size, then I would go 156, same for Mountain Twin for 157. If you have boot size 12 or above, then I would go 159 Standard and 159W Mountain Twin. If your boot size is in between (i.e. 11 to 11.5), let me know and we can take a closer look.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I need yours advice.
I am 87kg/190lbs and 175cm/5.7 9US.
I am looking for one board quiver.
I don’t go to the park and mostly ride on slopes but if there is some fresh snow I would go off piste. I also like to play a bit on the side of the slope.
I am not sure which board will be better for me – yes standard 156/159 or jones MT 157/160.
Hi Roey, thanks for your message.
Both the Standard and MT are 2 of the best one-board-quiver boards out there, IMO, so you can’t go wrong with either. Some things that might help with decision.
– I would say the Standard is just a touch more playful than the MT but it’s pretty close. Both are a good balance between playful and aggressive.
– The Standard has a small advantage in powder, IMO, just because of the extra distance you can set back on a powder day with the slam back inserts. If you didn’t think you’d bother moving your bindings on a pow day, then it negates that advantage, but it’s there if you want it.
– Standard slightly better in icy conditions, in my experience, but the MT is good in icy conditions too.
– MT a little more stable in crud, in my experience, but again it’s a subtle difference.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 159, but I would err shorter with these boards with US9 boots, as they are both a little wider than the typical regular width boards, particularly the Standard. So I’d go 156 for the Standard if I was you and 157 for the MT.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi..have been boarding for 30 years I would say I’m top half of advanced and been daily driving a k2 slayblade since 2010..it’s a stiffy🤣! I’m 5ft 11 size 10 uk boots weighing 184 lbs. I’m getting old and although I still like to gun it now and again I also like to butter and hit 180’s but no park other than some small to medium kickers and side hits..I’m thinking of one to take me to retirement now and am torn between uninc and standard..if you see my post on the uninc chat and you get to that first then ignore this! Not sure..I think I will miss the stability and dampness that I’m used to getting the standard…what do you think? Great reviews btw 👍🏻
Hi Steve, thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Uninc for you, just because I think it will feel more like what you’re used to and provide you with more stability. The Standard could work, but it might be a little bit too much of a contrast. I never got on the slayblade but I’ve heard it’s quite stiff. The Standard Uninc would almost certainly give you more forgiveness than the Slayblade but with less of a drastic change. IMO, you would also gain more forgiveness from the BSOD (again hard to say how much for sure, having not ridden the Slayblade, but from I’ve heard others say, I’d say you would. Not quite to the same extent as the Standard Uninc, but close. The Standard, IMO, is certainly easier going overall and easier for butters, pop (easier to get it to pop but not as much total pop as Standard Uninc), and spins, but a step down for speed and carving.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi..great review..I’m currently riding a k2 slayblade 2010 as a daily driver..it’s very stiff and a bullet if you have ever ridden one d as though angry says it’s soft compared to a bsod!! Other reviewers don’t..anyway i looking to mellow out duee to my age..I want something I can still charge now and again but as Leo something fun to carve and 180 butters etc..so I narrowed it down to bsod ,standard or standard uninc!! What are your thoughts..I could go stranda decender or flagship or united shapes cadet..would love your thoughts if you have ridden these. Advanced rider . Kind Regards
Hi Nate, thanks a lot for your reviews, it really helps understand so many things and do a selection that will help grow our riding.
I am a rider going to intermediate level and the last years i have been riding a Nitro Prime of 158 and now want to challenge my game and grow.
My height is 183 cm and weight 80 kg.
I wear 10.5 US size boots.
I am seriously considering buying the 2025 standard and pairing it with the Burton Cartel bindings.
Would you say that a combination of 156 Standard with medium or large Cartel or a YES Airmaster Medium or large would be better?
Thanks and wishing you a great new year.
Hi Alex, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – things are really hectic right now!)
I think the Standard would be a good step up from your prime, without being too much of a stretch. And I agree on sizing it to a 156 with your specs. Pairing it with the Cartel would, IMO, give you better butterability and board feel overall. If you think you’d be doing a good bit of freestyle stuff on it, I’d be leaning that way. The Airmaster will give you a better carving experience (in my experience) without sacrificing anything for slow speed turns. Also has better shock absorption (though the Cartel is pretty good, just that YES/Jones bindings take shock absorption to another level).
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late)
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all the awesome content! I have been studying your reviews a lot by now. I am looking for a new one board quiver: I am an all mountain rider who always prefers powder. But given its of course scarce, I also ride a lot groomers (both on hard morning conditions and slushy spring days). I also like to jump around here and there but spend less time in the park season after season. Currently ride an old Gnu Carbon Credit which I like in powder but has very little control on hard snow (it is also very old by now). I have on my shortlist the Yes Standard (159), Yes PYL (160W) and Capita Mercury (159). I am a bit above 70kg, 10.5 boot size. Any thoughts which one would most suitable for?
Hi Ralf, thanks for your message.
Could also let me know your height. While weight and foot size are more important than height for sizing, IMO, I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor.
Hi Nate, I am 6.0 / 183 cm. In the meantime, I also considerably added the Yes Standard in 156 to the short list. Alongside the 159.
Looking forward to hear your view!
Hi Ralf
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 157/158, so I would be leaning 156 if you went Standard. Of the boards you listed originally, I would probably go Mercury 159 – just as it’s a better size for your specs, IMO, vs the Standard 159. The PYL gives you the best powder performance, but I prefer the sizing of the Standard 156 or Mercury 159 (or 157) for you.
Thanks a million! You have any other board in my mind, which could be even better fit?
My level is that I am very good and controlled rider in any terrain at any snow (20y of riding). But dont manage to go out more than 7 days per season and wont throw huge jumps in the park or anything like that
Hi Ralf
I think something like the Standard would work well – it should give you a little improved powder performance over the Carbon Credit and noticeably better in hard/icy conditions and in terms of stability, carving etc.
If you wanted to go more directional and more powder focused, at the expense of some freestyle attributes, you could look at something like the Jones Hovercraft 156 or Flagship 156W or Capita BSOD 159. Not quite as good in icy conditions as Standard and you’d be going up another jump in terms of stiffness. Not sure if you were wanting to keep things more medium flex? But some options to consider. For more mid-flex, more directional options, you could look at the Capita Navigator 158 (though a little down in terms of icy edge-hold), Burton Deep Thinker 157, Never Summer Swift 158.
I do like the PYL for you or something like the GNU Banked Country – I just feel like the 160W sizes are a little big overall and the 159s are borderline width-wise with 10.5s. Otherwise, I’d consider those as well.
Lots of options you could consider, but the Standard is a great choice for do-it-all and for hard snow and I think it would work well for what you’re looking for. But those are some options in case you wanted to get a bigger improvement for powder, but it sounds like you’re more looking for improvement in hard snow.
Hey Nate, I’m really deliberating between the Standard and Standard Uninc, but primarily due to board vs. boot size vs. weight. I’m ~135 lbs (+-5) with a size 9 boot. I’m thinking the 149 or 151 (which the Uninc doesn’t come in) would be the most appropriate for me in terms of weight, but I’m a little unsure of how boot overhang will pan out on the 149. Would appreciate any thoughts!
Hi Austin, thanks for your message.
Assuming a stance width of 545mm (21.5″) you’d be looking at an insert width of around 259mm. If you’re closer to the stance width of the reference stance width of the 149 (which is 495mm | 19.5″) then you’re looking at around 257mm at the inserts. Either of which I would be comfortable with with 9s. The 245mm waist width makes it sound narrower than it is. At the inserts (which is what matters for boot drag), you should be fine, unless you have super bulky boots, a 0-3 degree back binding angle and love to eurocarve. Then maybe not. But in most scenarios I think you’ll be fine.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I just picked up a Standard in 151 and I’m starting to wonder if it will be too big for me. I am 155 5’5 with a size 8. Should I size down?
Hi Andy, thanks for your message.
It’s a close call. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 154, but would definitely size down for this board with size 8 boots. It’s wide at the inserts for you, IMO, but sizing down that 3cm, it’s probably going to be fine. It’s certainly a weigh up between the 149 and 151, IMO. I think I’d be slightly leaning towards the 149, but I wouldn’t consider the 151 to be the wrong size for you either. Subtly, I think you’ll probably find the 151 just a touch stiffer, more stable, less agile than how I found the 156. But it’s not something that you should feel is noticeably massive or anything, IMO. If it was easy to make the change to the 149, then you could, but the 151 will work, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Hi, thanks for your help. This is the best resource for snowboarders.
I’m a beginner, and I’ve only had one season. My height is 180 cm, weight 92, foot size is US 10.5.
I bought Deeluxe team ID boots, union force classic M mounts.
Now I’m choosing a board, I want to buy YES STANDART 25 (159), but I’m afraid if it will be too wide for my foot size.
My riding style is mostly on prepared slopes. Soon I will fly to the mountains and try freeride. So I need a universal and multifunctional board. May I ask you to give me an advise and your suggestion for purchase?
Hi Oleg, thanks for your message.
The 159 Standard will be wide for your boots (or more to the point your foot size). That can still be OK, so long as the board is shorter than what would typically be a good length for you. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161, so going to the 159 would be sizing down slightly, but as a newer rider, I feel like you might find it a little too big. It’s close. I think you’d find it ok for when you’re riding faster and in powder, but for learning, particularly on groomed runs and in tight spaces, like trees, you may find it an effort to manage.
Some other options to consider, taking into account your level and the need for an all-rounder, would be the:
– Rome Warden 158
– Bataleon Goliath or Goliath+ 159
– Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 160
– Slash Brainstorm 160
Hope this helps with your decision
Dear Nate,
Good day.
Thank you for the so full and a very professional review. I will learn more about every of boards you recomended.
I like YES TYPO. What do you think about it? Can I consider it as well? If yes wht size I should buy? Maybe 159W will be ok for me in my case?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Oleg
The YES Typo definitely an option too. I didn’t mention it, as it’s not as good in powder as the others mentioned, but if you’re not too worried about powder performance, then it could work for sure – it’s one of the best options, IMO for a high end beginner, transitioning into intermediate riding. Size-wise, you could probably go up to the 161 for this, but you could go 158 too. But it would be bordering on too small and potentially too narrow – especially if you’re going to be carving deeper. You could consider the 159W with this one. Because it’s a narrower board, the wider sizes are narrower than typical wides. While the waist width is only 2mm narrower than the Standard 159, it’s quite a bit narrower at the inserts and narrower nose and tail too. And being a more mellow board than the Standard it’s easier to handle as well. So 159W in this case vs 159 with the Standard would be a very doable size, IMO.
Dear Nate,
Good day.
This is me again.
Thank you for all advises from your side. That have changed all my opinion about what board I need to myself.
Now I can buy with a good discount the following one – Yes TYPO 163w. Do I understand correctly that it will not be to much wide for me (it suites me with my weight much better – 92 kg nett:)).
Hi Oleg
Not to say that it would be so wrong for you that it would be unrideably too big, but the combo of width and length and it’s a little bigger than ideal, IMO. I would go 159W or 161 before the 163W.
Hi Nate!
Thank you very much for writing this amazing review. I really appreciate how you’ve put together this site, it helped me a lot in narrowing down my options.
My current ride is an on old 2009 burton custom 156 and have finally decided to retire it. For my next board, I’m looking for a one quiver board that can do it all in a more playful way. I ride 2/5 groomers, 2/5 pow and 1/5 freestyle (side-hits, butters, small/med jumps, switch). I’ve narrowed my list down to the yes standard and lib tech terrain wrecker plus even the nitro santoku but it might be too soft.
Yes standard: seems more stable for carving, better in powder, as you said has an x-factor, but may be too stiff and not nimble/quick edge to edge
TW: seems more playful and nimble, but not sure about the hookyness of mtx, the extruded base and rocker in between foot coming from a full camber board
For context, I’m 5,11”, 170 pounds and have boot size 9 to 9.5 and am at the higher end of intermediate.
I’m leaning toward the YES Standard 153—shorter than my current all-mountain length. My thinking is that the smaller size might make it feel more playful and nimble, mitigating concerns about stiffness and easiness for buttering.
What are your thoughts on this size and my reasoning? Do you think it aligns with what I’m looking for, or would you recommend a different board or approach?
Henri
Hi Henri, thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think you’re on the right track with them, and yeah, I’d say the Standard is a little stiffer, a little less playful and not quite as nimble but they’re certainly not worlds different in those aspects. Particularly in terms of nimbleness. I find the Standard pretty close in terms of edge-to-edge speed.
The Standard is a little more similar to the Custom vs the Terrain Wrecker, so the TW would be a little bit more to get used to, coming from the Custom, but I’d say you’d adapt pretty quickly. But the Standard would be less of a transition – but is still a more playful, more easy going option vs the Custom, in my experience.
Going shorter would mellow out the Standard – and you’re probably going to feel a similar flex/playfulness from the 153 Standard as the 157 TW, for example. The downside is less surface area for powder, so not as good as the TW 157 in powder, IMO. The 153 wouldn’t be wrong for you though, it’s a wider board and one you could size down on – and as you say gives you some more playfulness. I would still be leaning 156 for the Standard for you, as an all-round size, but the 153 certainly still in range and could work well, if you didn’t mind it being harder work in powder. Since it sounds like you spend around 40% of your time in powder, though, you may want the easier float of the longer size.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply!
That makes sense for sure. I get the feeling that you think the Standard overall fits my objective more than the TW or Santoku, that helps.
So for the Standard, my worry with the 156cm is that the width is 25.8cm. My boot size is only 9 to 9.5, plus it’s 1.1cm wider than my current board, so wouldn’t it be too sluggish/much work to turn?
And after re-examining, I ride closer to 1/3 in each groomer, pow and freestyle. If I were to go for the 153, would a slightly stiffer bindings compensate the float in powder? And what’s your experience with using the slam back inserts? Cheers
I’ve decided to go with the 153 and have that extra playfulness. I think the float in powder will be enough for me with this width, extra rocker and taper.
Was curious what bindings you think work best. I’m torn between the Union Strata, Force, Ultra or Burton Cartel. Do you think any of these stand out for that playful all mountain type of riding?
Hi Henri
I would be leaning Strata, Force or Cartel of those. The Ultra would work for sure, but it’s not as good a flex-match, IMO (just a little on the too-soft flexing side). Given that it sounds like you have a fair bit of freestyle in your repertoire, I like the Strata for you. It’s a good flex-match, IMO and should suit your riding style well. The downside of the Strata, however, is that you wouldn’t be able to use the slam back inserts as the mini disc isn’t wide enough to span the 4cm between the slam back inserts and the main insert pack. I think the Cartel would be your next best bet. The Force would be a good option too though – I’ve just found the Cartel to be a touch better for freestyle stuff vs the Force. But either would definitely work. Note also that the Ultra, if you were going to go with them also have the same mini-disc as the Strata.
I haven’t used the slam back inserts on the Standard personally, but in general setting back further in powder helps, in my experience.
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your insightful reply! I’m leaning toward the mini-disc option, as I think it’ll enhance board feel, and should still be able to set them back enough for powder. The Stratas sound incredible, but I noticed your updated top 10 all-mountain bindings and got intrigued by the Bataleon Blaster Asym you ranked at #3. Would this be a good option for my setup? Or do you think the stiffer and more stable Astro Asym might make more sense since I went with a shorter board?
I really appreciate your time and advice and made sure to support your page as a small way to say thanks!
Hi Henri, I think the Blaster Asym would work well with your setup. And the fact you went smaller, means it will be a little softer feeling, so the Blaster Asym is a better match than it would be if you went longer, IMO (it won’t need as much stiffness to drive it as if you were to go with the longer option). The Astro Asym would likely work too. We’ve only tested the Fullwrap version of the Astro, so not completely sure of how much softer they feel vs the Fullwrap, but in our experience the Asymwrap equivalent of a fullwrap is usually noticeably softer. We felt the Fullwrap Astro at 8.5/10, but I don’t think the Asymwrap would feel more than 7/10. I think I’d be leaning Blaster-Asym in this case, but again, having not tested the Astro Asym, that’s a bit of a guestimate.
And thanks so much for the contribution! Highly appreciated.
Hey Nate!
Just wanted to swing back in and say thanks again for your help. You recommended the Standard for me and I’ve already fallen in love with it after one day on the slopes! It’s a fantastic board and you were right on the money with your review. Cheers!
Hi John, great to hear from you again. And awesome to hear you’re loving the Standard. Hope you have a great rest of your season!
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the great review!
I am at an intermediate level, currently using a ‘Ride Machete / Size 155’ board. While I really enjoy the speeds it has to offer,
I don’t feel in good control when at slower speeds or in-between trees, and it often feels catchy.
Not sure how much of it is just my level and how far another board could support me here.
Weight 75kg. Height 180cm.
I am thinking to get the following:
YES Standard 2025 / Size 156
Photon Step On / US 8.5 or 9
Step On Genesis EST Bindings – Size M
Do you think that could work well together or would you recommend another board?
Boots – An 8 was recommended to me as the ideal size for my feet after measuring in a shop,
but I never had a day on the mountain that didn’t end with a lot of pain in my feet (even months after the initial break in phase).
This was with Photon Boa boots, without Step On functionality.
Should I go a half or full size up for the new boots?
Bindings – Genesis EST or Re:Flex?
Cheers
Hi Eric, thanks for your message.
In my experience with both the Standard and Machete, I have found the Standard to feel noticeably less catchy. Technique certainly plays a part, but the board can make a big difference in terms of that as well. As part of testing boards, I always purposefully try to feel for that catchiness and see how a board feels when skidding or slashing turns – and the Standard has always felt very catch/minimal to me.
Size-wise for boots, I seldom find that anyone is right on their mondopoint. It is sometimes the case, but I could never get into a Burton 9.5 – and that’s the size that I should “technically” be in. The 10 is the Burton that fits me best – and I’ve tested a lot of them. I mean, sure after 25-30 days riding in them the 9.5 would probably come good and be a really good fit. But life is too short to spend 25 days on the mountain in discomfort, IMO. And the 1/2 size up has never felt like it’s packed out so much as to make the boot feel too sloppy or anything, so I would look at the 8.5 in your case. No guarantees of course, as everyone’s feet are different. Even at the same length, fit can feel different – but based on my experience and what others have also said, I would say the 8.5 would be the mostly likely to be the best fit for you, overall over the life of the boots. It can definitely depend on the brand and on your particular feet, so if you can try on first, that’s the best bet. If not, you could order two sizes and return the one you don’t want (making sure the store you buy from has a good return policy).
Size-wise for the board, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 158, but with your boot size, I would size down for any board. The Standard in particular is wider than typical and really is more like a wide board, in terms of the width at inserts and the contact points. That said, the narrower waist vs wide boards does help to make it not feel as wide. So I think the 156 would definitely work, but I would also consider the 153 for this board. Typically I would say 155-156 would be your best range, but for this board, I would definitely consider the 153. If you want to ride more trees and do some freestyle stuff and feel like you’ll be riding slower to moderate speeds more so than higher speeds, then I’d be leaning 153. If you do want to ride fast a lot of the time, then I’d be leaning 156 – and if you’re going to be riding powder a fair bit, the 156 would give you better float there too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello, Nate! You are doing a lot of useful things for snowboarding enthusiasts. Please tell me which size of the snowboard Yes standard is better for me to choose. My height is 186 cm, weight 72 kg, shoe size 44EU. I’m leaning towards 156, but am I too light for him? Thank you very much. Anton.
Hi Anton, thanks for your message.
I think the 156 is just right for you. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” closer to 159, but with this board, for you, I would size it down a bit. But with your boot size, I don’t think you need to size it down to the 153. I think the 156 would be your best bet and should be a size that works really well for you for this board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for all the data, it has helped me tremendously!
This will be my third season riding and I feel that I’ve quickly outgrown my beginner board, so I was hoping I could get your thoughts on the best fit for me as far as moving towards something more Intermediate.
I think I have it narrowed down between the Yes Standard and Jones Mountain Twin. I’m primarily an east coast rider and most of my day is spent carving groomed blues with some blacks mixed in, but I also like getting playful occasionally with some sidehits/through trees etc. Almost no park so far but I would like to explore that side in the future mainly centering on jumps.
Also what size should I be looking at?
5’8″, 160lbs, size 9 boots
Current board is a 152 but I’ve never ridden anything else so I’m not sure if that’s correct for me.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hi John, thanks for your message.
Firstly, size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155/156. But as a beginner the 152 was a good size for you, IMO. But as you’ve progressed out of the beginner phase, it would be a good idea to get closer to that 155/156 length, IMO.
From what you’re describing, my instinct is the YES Standard, just because it’s a touch more playful than the Mountain Twin and a touch better in icy conditions. But you can’t make a bad choice between them for your next step, IMO.
Specific sizing for those two boards, I would look at the 153 for the Standard. While this isn’t really going much longer than your 152, the 153 Standard is really more the equivalent of a 155ish. The Mountain Twin, I would look at the 154. The 157 is in range, but I with your boots being 9s, I would still err south of 155/156 rather than north of it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Not sure I agree w u on this one Nate. I thought this board was just too springy and just got bucked around for days. I wanted to like it tho.
Hey Tony. Thanks for your input and insights. Much appreciated to get another perspective on it.
Hi Nate,
I was waiting for the 2025 review and I am glad it’s there!
I am 6ft1 (1m86), 170lbs (75kg) and have 44,5EU boots but they are adidas Response 3MC so they have a reduced footprint (similar to a 42,5/43 I think). My bindings are Union Atlas size M.
Which board length would you recommend? I guess this is your favourite do-it-all board?
I had the Standard from 2017 in 158 size so I kinda hope that the 156 size will fit me well and might be even easier to carve?
The 2017 version was probably a little thinner though. I expect a 156 to be easier to carve/turn as it’s more suited to my weight?
Cheers,
Björn
Kind Regards,
Björn
Hi Björn
Yes, I finally got the 2025 review out!
I think the 156 would suit you well. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, but given the width of this board, even with longer feet, I think sizing down to the 156 makes the most sense for you, for this board. And yeah, this is my favorite do-it-all board.
I would say you’ll find it a little easier to carve than the 2017 model, even with the extra width. It’s a remarkably easy turning board, given its width and I don’t think you’d have any troubles carving/turning it with your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate! I’ve noticed you just updated this review. Was it that in previous review of this board flex was 6 or do I remember things incorrectly? (I probably do remember things incorrectly)
Hi Egor.
You remember correctly! I did rate it 6/10 in previous reviews (you can see it’s past reviews at the link at the end of the review). It felt a little softer than what I think of as a 6, this time when I rode it. Not enough to get it to a 5 though. So I settled on 5.5/10.
Hi Nate.
Very much leaning towards getting last year’s model of this board since it is on sale in many places. 6’5”, 200lbs without gear on, and size 11.5 boots. Past boards were are 159w Yes Basic, and a 157w Rome Katana. This will be my fourth season but first season I really didn’t progress all that much. Goals this season are improving jumps/switch and maybe some simple rail tricks all while riding more blacks than I normally do. 80% groomers though most of the time.
Torn between 159 and 162. Someone else recommended 159 but wanted to see what you thought. Worry a bit about the height but don’t think my stance is super wide.
Hi Sanders, thanks for your message.
While I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163, you could definitely do 159 on this board if you wanted to. And I think that’s probably your best bet, given the goals that you have. The 162 wouldn’t be wrong by any means – and if you were looking to work on riding faster and getting into powder as much as possible (and rode somewhere where you go it regualarly), then I’d probably be leaning 162 for you. But given your goals, I would be leaning 159. The Standard 159 is a decent amount wider than the 159W Basic as well – so you’d still be going up a bit in size.
Hope this helps with your decision (if the reply didn’t come too late – my apologies, I’m way behind right now!)
Hey thank you very much Nate, that does help and it was not too late of a reply. I appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Sanders. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate, thanks for everything you’re doing, especially the advice.
I’m 5’10, 205, US 9.5-10. Looking to hop on a Standard or Std Uninc (torn between more playful flex and full camber). Coming from a 2016/17 Rome Double Agent, which is full camber but have also ridden v-rocker etc in the past. If I’m in the park it would only be 50-50s and medium kickers. I would like to get out more in the pow but this will be a quiver of one and I’m only likely to get out a couple of weeks each year so unfortunately pow is lower on the priorities (unless my wife takes me to Japan for my 40th next year…). So basically I’m a childless rad dad who sometimes likes to bomb and sometimes like to butter and pop. Could you throw me some size recommendations for the standards (guessing 159, but wondering about 156 with my boot size…) and arguments for and against std vs uninc? Like I’m thinking maybe the compromise is the uninc at 156…? Too many options and too much procrastinating! Maybe I just hop on a greats…
Hey Ben, thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161, so I’d probably be leaning 159, even with your boot size, but the 156 isn’t out of the equation. But for when you’re bombing the 156 Standard probably isn’t going to give you enough stability. So, if you went Standard, I would go 159 – and that would give you some decent powder float for when you do hit pow or if you get to Japan. The 159 in the Standard Uninc, whilst giving you better powder and bombing performance, is going to be harder to pop and butter etc. Like you eluded to, the Standard Uninc in the 156 could work. Just wouldn’t do great in powder, but should have you covered for everything else. In the 156, the flex should feel a little softer for you than it did for me, so that would mellow it out.
The Greats is certainly an option if, like going with the 156 Standard Uninc, you want to optimize groomers, etc and take your chances with having to work harder in powder. Again, you’re in the channel between 156 and 159, but it’s got a lot more effective edge than the Standard and overall the 156 is more bomby than the Standard 156 – but not quite as bomby as the 156 Standard Uninc.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome advice and I think confirming where I was at iny head. But then I saw a 2025 mercury in person today and now that.is a good looking deck…
Decisions decisions!
A high quality choice to have to make!
Hey Nate,
My father’s birthday is coming up and I want to get a new snowboard for him. He is turning 60 and mainly just wants to cruise the groomers smoothly, no freestyle or freeriding involved. He is 178cm, ~80kg and has a shoesize of EU 40 (7.5 US). We mostly ride in the French Alps, and I would say that he’s an comfortable intermediate rider. I am looking for a snowboard that fits that desciption and was looking at the following boards:
YES Standard
Bataleon thunderstorm
Burton deepthinker
Jones mountain twin
What worried me was the width of the snowboard in combination with his shoesize, especially of the YES standard 156cm which was my top pick.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Do you think YES standard 156 is fine? Or would recommend another board/size?
Really appreciate the help and the work you do here on this website!
Cheers!
Hi Rick, thanks for your message.
Hope my son buys me such a great gift when I/he is older!
The Standard and Mountain Twin are very safe bets, IMO, for how he is riding. The Thunderstorm would certainly work too, but if he’s not used to the 3BT that would take a little bit of adjustment. The Deep Thinker would work, but I’d maybe go a little more mellow. Something like the Gril Master from Burton would be a really good option, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your father’s “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, but as you mentioned, the width of something like the Standard needs to be taken into account for 7.5 boots. Sizing the length down to 156 would certainly help – and if he was in 9s/10s, then that’s probably what I’d do, but with 7.5s, it might not be enough. You could go to the 153, but then you’d be dropping quite a bit of effective edge and with it edge-hold and stability, for his weight. So, I’m not sure there’s a great size for the Standard for him. If you did go Standard I’d probably go 156, but I think the Mountain Twin sizes a little better.
With the Standard 156 you’re looking at around 272mm at the inserts (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width) – which is the width of a lot of wide boards in that length. The Mountain Twin 157 is more like 267mm at the back insert and 266mm at the front insert (again with a 22″ stance), which is still a little wider than the typical regular width board, but because of it’s effective edge, I think he’d be OK going to the 154 in the Mountain Twin. The 154’s effective edge is 118.6cm. The 153 Standard’s EE is 113.8cm, so it’s quite a bit of difference. The 154 Mountain Twin has more EE than the 156 Standard (116.2cm), so while you’d be going down a couple of cms in total length, it’s not something that’s likely to feel any shorter. While the 264mm back insert and 263mm front insert width of the Mountain Twin is still wide for 7.5s, with the significant size-down in length, the overall size should work well, IMO.
I think he’d be fine on the 156 Standard, but I think he’d have a better time on the 154 Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First thank you very much for the information.
I am a tiny and light weight man (167cm/58kg/25.5cm), at intermediate level who is considering YES Hel Yes Snowboard or YES Standard Snowboard as my first board.
They are both 7/10 on YES’s flex scale, but I heard that women snowboard are less stiff, is it the case even the numbers are the same.
I do switch a lot, and my preference is like groomers (most of the time) > powder (sometime) >>> park (rarely). What would be your thoughts please?
Hi Joshua, thanks for your message.
In my experience, they won’t vary significantly in flex if rated the same, by the same brand. But smaller boards of the same flex rating will always feel softer relative to the person riding it. i.e. The YES Standard in the 149 would feel a lot softer for me than riding the 156 did. So, I think a lot of the talk around women’s boards being softer is typically because someone tries one and it’s usually smaller than the men’s board that they’re riding – and usually too small for their weight. There may be some variance, but I suspect the main reason behind the perception of women’s boards being less stiff is that they are typically in smaller sizes.
In any case, both the Standard and Hel YES (tested by our women’s gear testers) didn’t feel as stiff as 7/10. They’re more medium – 6/10 by my feel on the Standard. Long story short, I wouldn’t worry about the Hel Yes feeling too soft in comparison to the Standard, so long as you get it in a suitable size.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 149. The Standard in the 149 would work, but given your boot size, would ideally size down the length of the Standard because of its width. Note that the width at the inserts and tip/tail is a little wider than you’d expect, if you were to just look at the waist width. You could still ride the Standard in the 149 and it wouldn’t be the wrong choice, IMO, but the Hel Yes in the 149 would be the better bet, IMO, because the size is more optimal.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I’m writing to you from Italy. I have already bought a board following your reviews and I have personally verified that all your feedback is perfect. I come from an easy rider 158 w. My boot size is 11.5. I had tried a 157 but it seemed small to me.
I would like to buy a yes standard and I’m sure that from your review I will find this board perfect for my purpose.
I would like advice on choosing my ideal size, my weight is 178.57 pounds and my height is 70.87 inches. I’m honestly undecided between the 156 and the 159.
I don’t particularly like extreme speeds, I stick to around 31.07 mph. I like to butter up and do some little tricks on the track. some fresh snow when I find it.
I use union strata as attacks.
I really appreciate some advice. Thank you
Hi Enzo, thanks for your message.
With 11.5 boots, I’m not surprised you found the 157 Easy Rider too small.
Generally, size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. Given your foot/boot size, I don’t think you’d find the 159 too big or anything, but the 156 is still in range. If you were often riding faster, then I’d probably say 159 for sure. But given the speeds and the fact you like to butter and do little tricks, I would be erring towards the 156. While I think you could still butter the 159, it would be harder work and a little more cumbersome to press with your specs. The 159 would be better in fresh powder, but you’ll mostly notice this when it’s deep powder vs shallower powder. If you don’t get deep powder very often, like more than around 15cm, then I think the 156 will be enough for you in terms of powder.
Hope this helps with your decision
thanks, now I have everything clear
You’re very welcome Enzo.
Hi Nate – Amazing website – really impressed by all of the crazy data you compile here. Thank you!
I am trying to decide on sizing for the Standard. I am between 156 and 159.
I am 6’2″, 180lbs, size 11 Burton Ruler Step On boots. Burton Genesis Step On Bindings.
I want to go 156, and I think, given the width/volume-shifted design, it should be OK, but I want to double-check and see your thoughts on it.
I spend half my time following my kids learning to ski very slowly on Pennsylvania green trails. I spend the other half of my time on blue/black groomed trails in Vermont, without kids, at speeds around 35-45 mph. I don’t go in the park. I do ollies and side hits and find little jumps along the way sometimes.
I’m thinking the 156 will be stable enough at speed for me when I am ‘bombing’ a run. But I also think it will be more maneuverable/better behaved in slow speeds with the kids. Would be interested in your feedback.
Thanks again for an amazing website.
Hey Bob, thanks for your message.
I concur with what you’re saying and I would be leaning 156 for your specs and how you describe your riding. While I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161, I think it makes sense to size this down more than just to the 159. You would definitely be OK with the 159 and if you were looking to optimize it more for speed and/or powder, then I might err that way. But given how you’ll ride it I’d be leaning 156. The 156 has never felt small to me and I would typically ride 157-159 in all-mountain boards (6’0″, 180lbs, 9.5 boots). While you’ve got a little height and foot size on me, it’s your weight that will have the biggest influence on your stability at speed, which would be the biggest question mark with the 156. But I’ve found it pretty stable at speed in the 156 and haven’t had issues in that speed range. Naturally, the 159 would be more stable at those speeds, but the 156 can handle those speeds, in my experience.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate – looking for a one-board quiver and have the Yes Standard and Jones Frontier in my top spots. All mountain, a few park laps for small-med jumps (no jibbing), carving groomers, some higher speeds, pow if we get lucky, switch now and then. Ride CA/UT/MT/WY
5’11” 170lbs 11.5 boots
Looking at 158w Frontier and 159 Standard (maybe 156?)
Would love if you can provide a tie-breaker for me!
Thanks for all the info you put out. Lets see if I can add some from my spreadsheet for quicker comparo:
Board | Size | waist | dm^2 | Tip | Tail | FFw | RFw | EE | Sidecut | setback
Front. 158w 262 4283 305 305 27.45 27.76 1160 7.5 20mm
Stand. 159 263 4380 310 310 27.7 27.7 1188 7.8 0
Stand. 156 258 4220 305 305 27.2 27.2 1163 7.6 0
FFw – front foot width
RFw – rear foot width
If you can tell, I might overanalyze purchases.
Hey MTN
Thanks for your message. I also overanalyze purchases, but it gives you a better chance of getting the right decision, so I don’t think it’s a bad thing most of the time. Just makes for a slower process.
Between the Standard and Frontier I would go Standard for most situations. The Frontier is a little better in powder, IMO, so if you were seeing a fair bit of powder, then that would be one thing that would lean me in its direction. But if powder is relatively rare or if you don’t really see deeper powder, then the Standard handles powder fine, especially when it’s not too deep. Both are good in icy conditions, but the Standard is a little better, IMO.
If I had to choose one that was better than the other in terms of ease of ride, I would say Frontier, but there’s very little in it.
The Standard is better for jumps, IMO and butters. But for pretty much everything else there’s not much between them.
Overall, I would personally go Standard, unless I was seeing powder quite regularly or if there was deeper powder and wanted to take advantage of that. If not, then I’d go Standard, but you can’t make a wrong choice between them for what you’re describing, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159. With 11.5s you don’t really necessarily to size down for width on the Standard but it is more board than even a lot of wide boards. My instinct is that the 156 would be the better bet for you in the Standard. The Frontier, the 158W should be just right. The Standard 156 will still likely feel a little smaller than the 158W Frontier (as I’m sure the specs allude to as well), but I’d say the 156 Standard and 158W Frontier are closer in size than the 158W Frontier vs 159 Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
First, I just want to say I truly appreciate your efforts and responsiveness. I will surely be using your affiliate links for getting the Yes Standard (and hope everyone does the same).
I think I just need to know whether to get a 151 or 153. Here’s are my details:
5’8″
155 lbs
size US9 mens boots
Mainly ride in Colorado
Current board: Never Summer Shaper Twin 153
I’m an advanced rider – can go anywhere on the mountain, but I just won’t do cliffs. You sold me on the Standard as being truly the ‘do it all’ board’. I want to try a rocker/camber/rocker board, as I’ve been on a camber/rocker/camber for a few years now. The Standard seems like a perfect next board, and equally versatile (if not more) than the Shaper Twin.
I am often in the trees so quick turning is important, but I’m really big on carving, eurocarves whenever I’m on groomers. As such I also worry about toe drag. Also, I do a lot of nose/tail rolls off of knuckles, small jumps on side hits, etc.
Lastly, I want to make sure it’s good in powder. I think either size is fine in that area due to the slam back inserts.
Thanks!
Hi David, thanks for your message.
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but would size down for the Standard. The question is, as you’ve already narrowed down to, is by how much.
I would be leaning towards the 153, but it’s a close call and wither would definitely work. The 153 will give you a little more for carving and powder and while I think the 151 would be fine for you for carving and powder, I would be erring in that direction. The 151 would be a little better for quick turning/trees, but I don’t think you’ll have issues with that with the 153, and the 153 gives you a little more insurance in terms of toe drag, particularly as you’ll be eurocarving on it.
Also note, that the 153 is likely to feel a touch smaller than the 153 Shaper Twin, noting the following:
– Effective edge: 116cm on 153 Shaper Twin, 113.8cm on 153 Standard
– Waist width: 260 vs 256
– Width at inserts (assuming a 545mm (21.5″) stance width: 272mm/266mm, front insert/back insert on Shaper Twin, vs 266mm/266mm on the Standard
– Tip/tail width: 310cm/300cm vs 299cm/299cm
I think they’ll likely feel quite similar size-wise, but if anything the Shaper Twin probably feels slightly bigger. So, if you were to go 151 in the Standard, it would likely feel smaller than what you’re currently riding. If that’s what you’re after, then it’s no issue, but if you don’t want it to feel smaller, then the 153 is the better bet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi David, just want to chime in and say I bought my standard last year based on Nate’s recommendation and it has been everything I’d hoped for. By far the best board I have ever ridden.
Not sure if you’ve made your purchase yet or have had a chance to ride it, but to answer your powder question – I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Standard does in powder even without using the slambacks. I believe Nate mentions this in his review.
I expected to want to use the slambacks for pow days but the directional float is so good that I don’t feel the need unless we’re talking like knee deep powder.
Thanks for your input Steve. Much appreciated.
what do you think are the biggest differences between these Jones mountaintwin , yes standard uninc & yes standard. what would work best for me My current snowboard Gnu riders choice 158w is breaking so it’s time to try something new. Even if a snowboard can’t handle everything, I want it to work in the park on small jumps & halfpipes. it must handle speed and still be playful at lower speeds. It would have been good if it could handle powder and slush.
Hi Joakim
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I would be debating between the regular Standard and Mountain Twin. The Standard Uninc is more stable at speed and better for high speed carves, but it’s not as playful at slower speeds. It’s something that you’ve got to be aggressive with to get the best out of it. The Standard and Mountain Twin will be at least as stable at speed as the Rider’s Choice (and depending on the year of your Rider’s Choice – older ones were a bit more playful, maybe more playful at speed), but give you a little more in terms of powder performance. And still good for jumps and pipes, but maybe not as good as the Rider’s Choice, but not too far off.
Between the Standard and Mountain Twin, there’s not much in it. I re-tested both in the 2025 models and they’re both just really consistent, all-rounders that don’t really have any weaknesses that I could get out of them. The Standard is a little better in icy conditions, but the Mountain Twin is still decent in that area. Standard just a touch easier to butter and a touch easier to extract it’s pop. Overall a little more snappy than the Mountain Twin. The Mountain Twin a touch damper. But for the most part they are pretty comparable.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Thanks for the reply. I think your reviews are top notch. My Gnu is from 2018. It’s always difficult to choose something new that you haven’t tried. I’m wondering if yes standard is less clunky edge to edge, compared to my Gnu or jones. I am 173cm 78kg 44 eu
Hi Joakim
YES Standard, if you’re looking for a one-board quiver is a pretty safe bet, IMO. As is the Mountain Twin. Size-wise, I would go 156 for the Standard – and you’ll have no issues width-wise with your boots on that. The 153 would be a possibility too, if you wanted to go smaller, more nimble, more playful, at the sacrifice of a little stability at speed and float in powder. The 156 would give you a good balance between agility and stability, IMO. For the Mountain Twin, I would look at the 157, which I think will be wide enough for you, but if you’re worried about moving away from a wide board and aren’t sure about the width (and are considering the Mountain Twin), if you could let me know your typical stance width and binding angles, how deep you like to carve and the brand/model of your boots, and I can take a look and see what it might look like width-wise.
I’m a high-intermediate looking for a new board to replace a 2018 Rossi One 156. Before that, I had the 2015 version. I need excellent edge hold for Midwest ice, and something that rides switch well. I’m also looking for something that I can control well at slow speeds using my feet to steer, easy to scrub turns, forgiving, and be very stable at high speed.
I’ve stayed with Rossi for the edge tech and RCR, but now thinking a Typo or Standard would be a good bet for me. I’m not a fan of the new Rossi line and think the Typo or Standard would be an improvement – and you can set me straight if that’s not the case.
I don’t know if the Typo is a step down from the One or a lateral move. It certainly sounds like it has all the things that make the One a winner, but is better switch and might be a little more forgiving. I’m leaning Typo, but don’t want to sleep on the Standard if it is a better option and not a significant step up in stiffness/steerability, or not as forgiving.
I’m 5’7”, 185 pounds, Size 8 boots. First thought is a 158 Typo or 153 Standard, to stay in the weight range. I’m thinking a 156 Standard would be a bit too wide for my size 8’s, be tougher to pedal steer, and not be as quick turning. Maybe I’m wrong there. If the 156 wouldn’t be more cumbersome, I’d welcome the added stability of the longer board.
I really appreciate your reviews, feedback, and taking the time to answer questions so thoroughly. I look forward to your sage advice!
Thank you, Greg
Hi Gregg
Thanks for your message. Given what you’re describing, I think it’s a good bet to not go with another Rossignol One. The newer versions would be more difficult to pedal steer in the way you describe. You would get more stability at speed vs your 2018 model, but not as forgiving or easy to turn.
The Typo would tick all of your boxes except the stability at speed. You’d likely feel a step down in that respect on the Typo.
Generally a combination of very stable at high speed but also being forgiving and easy to scrub turns on is hard to come by, but the Standard, in my experience, does a pretty good job of it. You wouldn’t be looking at gaining a lot in terms of stability at speed on it vs what you’re used to, but it’s certainly more stable at speed vs the Typo. And it’s good in icy conditions, easy to turn and in my experience not a significant step up in terms of stiffness or anything like that vs the 2018 Rossi One. Vs the newer Rossi One, it’s more forgiving and easier to turn, in my experience. And it’s better for switch than the One as well, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, but with 8s would size down from that in most cases. I think the One in 156 was the right size for you, but, as you mention, the Standard is wider, so I would size down a little more on it, so I think the 153 would be your best bet. The biggest downside, as you’ve alluded to, is the reduced stability at speed. If you were to go Typo, the 155 or 158 would both be options. I would typically say 155 for your specs, if you were looking for something playful and weren’t too worried about stability at speed. But given you also want that stability at speed, I would say 158, if you were to go with the Typo.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks very much for your insight. I think the Standard is the right play for me (over the Typo). 153 or 156 would be my only decision. But…another board popped on my radar, and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to ride one. The Ride Shadowban. I think I’d be at home on that in a 157.
The Shadowban sounds like another great do-it-all board, that would tick all of my boxes, except for excellent edge hold in icy conditions. But if you believe some reviews/comments, it’s not so bad in icy conditions. If it fits me better than the Standard in more categories, I’m thinking I just need to keep my edges sharp and I’ll be fine. What do you think?
I do see your point about limitations – that is, some board characteristics can not co-exist. So, I realize you need to compromise somewhere.
Hi Gregg
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
We haven’t tested the Shadowban, but based on testing it’s predecessor, the Wild Life, and what we’ve heard, I think it would work for you. Didn’t get the Wild Life in any icy conditions when I rode it, so can’t say for sure on that front. Typically I find Ride boards to be OK but not great, but can’t say for sure with this one. Keeping the edges sharp would definitely help.
Hi Nate, always appreciate your insights. A couple of years ago I asked a question regarding what board to add to my quiver as I thought, while I really like how playful my NS Protoslinger was, it definitely was not suitable to any all mountain riding in my opinion given how soft it was (always slipping on ice.) Ultimately I decided to not buy another board at the time since I had only recently purchased the Protoslinger.
As a small guy, 5’5″ 135lbs or so, size 8 boots, would a 149cm Standard be a different enough of a ride to consider adding, as perhaps my daily driver? The fact that it’s essentially camber versus the rocker-dominant NS makes me think so but want your more informed opinion!
Thank you,
David
Hi David
Good to hear from you again. I think the 149 would be the best size for you for the Standard. And will definitely, IMO, make a difference in terms of icy edge-hold and stability at speed vs the Proto Slinger, even if your Proto Slinger is the 149 (which I’m guessing it is? as they haven’t had a 146 since the 2021 model). But yes, very different boards and would be worth adding next to the Proto Slinger, IMO. They make sense in a quiver, IMO. They’re not opposites or anything. It’s not like the Standard is highly directional or anything – it’s not like having a powder board and a park board, but they are certainly different enough to have in the same quiver, and the Standard makes for a really good daily driver, IMO.
Got it, Appreciate the input Nate! Think I will pull the trigger on the 149cm Standard!
Best,
David
You’re very welcome David. Happy riding!
Hey Nate! Big fan of you and your website. I was thinking about getting the Yes Standard as my next board. I currently rock a 152 Yes Typo; I love it but I feel like I’m outgrowing it. What size would you recommend? I weigh 150 pounds, height is 5’ 11’, and my boot size is US 9. I was thinking the 151 Standard would be perfect for me but it does seem that the sizing for this board is a little different. I consider myself an upper intermediate; I spend most of my time on groomers with a little bit of backcountry and maybe only 10% of park riding if that helps. Thank you
Hi Robert
Thanks for your message. I think the Standard would be a good step up – and I think the 151 would be right on for you for this board. It will likely feel a little bigger than the 152 Typo, but not by much. The Standard 151 is wider at the inserts, despite having a slightly narrower waist, vs the Typo, but the Typo does have a bit more effective edge. But overall I’d say the Standard 151 will feel like a little more board, but I think that size is right on and would be a good step up, given where you’re at.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, thank you for the insight! I ordered the board as soon as I read your comment lol. I know it’ll be a little bit of an adjustment going from the playful Typo to the stiffer, wider ride of the Standard but I also can’t wait to feel the increased stability and powder float. Thanks again, I hope you have a great one
You’re very welcome Robert. Hope the new board treats you well!
Hi Nate
Thanks for all the time you invest for all of us!
I’m really interested in the Yes Standard but I’m not quite sure about sizing. I’m 173 and weigh 72 kg (give or take), I wear Burton Photons size 43 (US 10).
Thanks in advance.
Mark
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156. But with the Standard being wider, I would size down to the 153 with 10s.
Hope this helps.
Hi Nate, thanks for such a great website!
I’m thinking about getting a Yes Standard and wondered what your thoughts on size and suitable bindings are?
I’m upper-intermediate, 189cm, 109kg/240 lbs, size 10.5 (US) boots. I’m leaning towards the 159 (as I think that suits my boot size) but considering 162 (for more stability).
I mainly ride groomers (and powder when available) but not park. I sometimes bomb about, but mainly ride more slowly and enjoy tight turns, trees and also trying switch, butters, side hits etc.
My current setup is a 159 Never Summer Revolver (wide version of the Evo) and Flux TT30 bindings, all from back in 2011. I ride centered stance, +/- 15 degrees. I’ve really enjoyed the Revolver, but I’m now looking for something a bit stiffer and still playful, which has led me to the Standard.
I’m not sure about what bindings to get though. I like responsiveness and support, which I think the Flux’s have given me, but they have worn out. They also have very little cushioning so I’m leaning towards something a bit more forgiving.
Any thoughts much appreciated!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 166, so even the 162 would be sizing down, which you want to do with this board with 10s. I think the 162 is probably the best all-round size for you. However, the 159 isn’t crazy small for you, given you’ve been riding a 159. And, from what I know of the Revolver/Evo, a soft flexing, predominantly rockered board. It should be noted that the Standard 159s effective edge of 118.8cm is quite a bit smaller than the 123cm effective edge on the 2011 Revolver 159. That said, I still think the Standard would feel more stable than the Revolver, even in the 159, because of the extra stiffness and camber. Not sure of the Revolvers exact width, but I imagine the width at inserts of the Standard 159 would be a little wider than it was on the Revolver, which would also add to it’s stability when landing jumps and flat basing.
In terms of powder float, I imagine the 159 Revolver to be not quite as good as the Standard 159, but not far off. All that rocker helps the Revolver in powder, but being a twin and being so soft doesn’t help it. And I would say the 159 Standard probably has a touch more surface area to it as well.
Long story short, I think the 159 Standard would still give you something that would improve your stability and float and remain good for tight turns. And you should find it nice and easy to butter. However, compared to what you’re used to, it will be a little harder to butter and may not be quite as quick edge-to-edge. But all round, I think it would be more suitable to your style and specs. The 162 though, would be the size I would choose for your specs, had you not been coming from a soft, rockered 159.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, thanks so much for your detailed response.
I’ve decided to go for the 159, mainly for manoeuvrability and hopefully it is stable enough for me.
Now I just need to choose bindings… I really like responsiveness, so am leaning towards another pair of Flux, even though I like the idea of getting some with better cushioning.
Do you think the XFs could be paired with the Standard, or are they too stiff? Being relatively heavy, i imagine I can go on the stiffer side?
I was also tempted by the Now Drives, as I’m intrigued to see if the skate tech makes any difference.
Thanks again!
Hi Matt
To be a good match for the board, I would ideally go with something in the 6/10 to 7/10 range, and for your specs, I would be erring stiffer, as you say. You could go as stiff as 8/10. I think 7/10 would be the sweet spot for the board. The XFs would be great. I haven’t specifically ridden the XFs on the Standard, but I can’t see how they wouldn’t be an awesome match. But yeah, if you wanted to go to the other end of shock absorption you could look at something like the NOW Drive or Jones Mercury. Still really good response as well – not quite as good as the XFs, IMO, but good nonetheless and amazing dampening. Just not as good board feel, IMO. Anything from the following, IMO, would also work well.
>>Our Top All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings Picks
Hi Nate, I need your advice. I am a 50-year-old (but still responsive :)) upper intermediate rider, 5.7 ft, 172 lbs, with 27 cm (9/9.5) Burton Ruler boots and Burton Mission bindings. I’m considering buying my first one-board quiver with good riding switch feeling and good floating in powder, and I was looking at the YES Standard and YES Standard Uninc, but I’m unsure which one to get. Also, what size should I go for? I’m concerned that the 153 might be too unstable when speeding, and the 156 might be too slow in edge changes. What would you recommend? Should I look for something different? Thanks!
Hi Luca
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning the regular Standard, since you want good powder float. It’s better in powder than the Standard Uninc, in my experience.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157. With the width of the Standard and your foot size, I would size down to the 153. But that does reduce your effective edge. The Standard Uninc is better at speed, so if you were willing to sacrifice a little in terms of powder, to get more stability, then the 153 Standard Uninc is an option. Or you could look at something else, if you’re worried about the sizing. I think you could get away with the 156 regular Standard, but it might feel a bit slow edge-to-edge. If you were going to consider something else, this is the place I would start. Let me know if you have questions about any of those as well.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for a great website and great reviews. I’m an higher intermediate rider riding in Sweden (ICY). I mostly go on groomers and sometimes pow when I’m lucky. New to the park but want to explore jumps etc more. I think Yes Standard ticks my boxes. Little confused size-wise. I have the skeleton key 162 right now. happy with it but looking for something more all mountain that can handle a little more speed.
I’m 220 lbs, 6’1″, size 10.5 (burton photon). I use step on bindings. Will that work OK with the board?
If not, do you have any other board suggestions? Unfortunately the demo options are very limited in Sweden.
Thanks!!
Hi Karan
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. So I think you’ve sized the Skeleton Key right. You could go 162 for the Standard too, but note that it’s likely to feel bigger, as it’s wider. Not only is it wider at the waist, but even more so at the inserts. The Skeleton Key 162 is 262mm at the waist and around 272mm at the front insert and 274mm at the back insert. With the Standard being more like 282mm at the inserts (which is quite wide for 10.5s). So you could size down to the 159. But given your looking for more speed, you could also do the 162, which would also be better in powder. Just won’t be as easy for riding the park.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I was hoping to get your thoughts/opinions on sizing – I did a quick search and couldn’t find too many others with my specs.
I’m 5’10” 205lbs size 905 boot.
I’d say higher intermediate/lower advanced rider, (been riding for about 20-25 yrs) – Live in Vancouver (so Whistler riding mostly) – “All mountain”, typically just cruising around the resort (not much park, if any then will be mostly small/medium jumps) but still want the ability for side hits and some light butter/presses… also ride with the wife so need something that’s easy to “ride slow” with when needed and also perform when we get those lucky powder days.
The Yes Standard seems to tick all the boxes for me, but I feel that my weight/boot size are making things a little challenging to pick a size… I feel weight wise I should be on a 159, but the width could possibly be an issue with my boot size?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Ricco
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161. But with this board and your boot size, I think the 159 is getting a little too big. You’d get away with it, but I think you’d find it a bit hard to work with when riding slow.
You could size down to the 156, which is also wide for your boot/foot size, but that shorter length would compensate for that. But still not ideal, as that’s shorter than what you’d probably want, especially in terms of effective edge. So probably not an ideal length of this board for you, IMO. If I had to say I’d say go 156. Won’t feel as good when bombing and won’t have as good a float in powder, but will be easier to manage when you’re riding slow and I think the trade off the other way around would be more noticeable.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Hope you had a great Christmas! I was having trouble trying to comment on your website so sorry for trying to reach you in a reply. I am interested in the YES Standard but am struggling with sizing. Im 5’10”, 170lbs, with a size 8.5 boot. Wondering if the 153 or 156 is the better option. By the looks of the width, Id assume the 153 is the way to go considering it would be the only board in my quiver. Just wanted to confirm with you. Thank you!
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message. Yeah, I agree. The 153 is your best bet, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158, but with 8.5s, I think sizing down to the 153 is more appropriate than down to the 156. The 156 wouldn’t be completely wrong, but I think the 153 would be the most optimal size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Amazing website! I currently have a Yes Basic 152. I’m looking for something similar, but faster and better in powder, however since I mainly spend time on groomers with my son, I don’t want anything powder specific, but I will be keeping the Basic. Do you think having the Standard as a second board/upgrade would work? I looked at the Uninc options, but look too aggressive. My specs are 176cm, 70kg and 8.5US Burton Ruler. I have Burton Genesis reflex bindings – hate the fact that I can’t micro adjust the stance with non Burton boards, but it is what it is. Current stance is 56cm, but with the combo Burton/Yes my only option on the Basic was to move the rear binding back one step, so it’s not a perfect symmetrical setup, but can still ride switch with a tail 2cm shorter than the nose. I could try different bindings, but after having had numb thumbs with Union bindings, I’m scared of moving away from Burton because toe straps that push down on my right foot don’t work for me. I’d still be riding the Standard switch just to have fun, to not lose the skill, and not on powder days of course.
Thanks,
Vito
Hey Vito
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would give you that little bit more in powder and could work in a quiver with the Basic. Note that you will be getting a stiffer (not super stiff, but you’ll still notice the difference, for sure) board that’s also wider, so it will take more input to get quick turns going and a bit more effort to get it to ollie etc. But it will feel more stable at speed and be able to lay into bigger/deeper carves, as well as giving you more in powder.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 153. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156 but with this board being wider, especially vs your foot size, I would size down to that. If it was going to be your only board, I’d almost go down to the 151 (which would be a closer equivalent size to your 152 Basic), but given you don’t want extra powder performance and you’ll be keeping the Basic, I think 153 makes sense in the quiver.
To note the size differences for reference, in case it helps with your sizing decision:
– Waist width: 253mm Standard 153 | 248mm Standard 151 | 250mm (152 Typo)
– insert width: 266mm Standard 153 | 261mm Standard 151 | 257mm (152 Typo)
– Tip/tail width: 299mm Standard 153 | 293mm Standard 151 | 294mm (152 Typo)
– Effective edge: 113.8cm Standard 153 | 112.3cm Standard 151 | 115cm (152 Typo)
– Contact Length: 101.8cm Standard 153 | 100.3cm Standard 151 | 110cm (152 Typo)
– Surface Area: 40.6dm2 Standard 153 | 39.3dm2 Standard 151 | 39.4dm2 (152 Typo)
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi,
Thank you for the thorough reply!
My next boots are probably going to be a 9US because I’ve struggled with mine for quite some time with numbness and tight toe area. Still okay with possibly a 151? Looking at my current setup with Basic 152, I don’t see how I would get heel/toe drag even with a boot half size bigger if I went for something with a very good reduced footprint. However, I’m sure I’d be happy with the 153 too. Thanks
Hey Vito
You’d have no problems with 9s on the Standard 151, IMO. I’m perfectly comfortable and haven’t had drag issues with US10s on boards with 261mm insert width. So I can’t see it being a problem with 9s.
Hello!
A year later and still haven’t added a second board to the Basic (I spent all the money on lessons for my son :p). I’m also looking at the Great, as you might have seen with my comment on the Greats review. However, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me please. You said:
‘If it was going to be your only board, I’d almost go down to the 151 (which would be a closer equivalent size to your 152 Basic), but given you don’t want extra powder performance and you’ll be keeping the Basic, I think 153 makes sense in the quiver.’
I was a bit confused as I assumed the 153 would have more powder performance than the 151? Thanks!
Hi Vito
Yes, I can see how that would be confusing! I assume what I meant to say was “given you want extra powder performance” rather than “don’t want”. And yes, the 153 will give a little better powder float for sure.
I have replied to your comment on the Greats review now as well.
Hi Nate!
I would really appreciate some advice on choice of a new board.
At 45 years I am done with everything park/rail/jump related. I just want to cruise the slopes on the few days I get in the season. Both quick and short, faster and longer turns. I like to “ride” the terrain and try to “surf” the slope. As it is real coast near it can get icy at times.
95kg/210 lbs(?), 189cm/6″2, size 11,5 Vans Aura Pro I got much thanks to your review.
Havent snowboarded a lot as an adult, and barely anything since Covid started. But decided to make that a thing this season, hoping for a day a week at the most.
Since getting new boots and realizing that I already was on or over the limit to toe/heel drag I am selling a Yes Typo 158 and Gnu Zoid 15(something) to get a one-quiver board. Of these I like the surf feel of the Zoid the most, and the looks. I have a thing for directional surf inspired/old style boards.
A bit limited as to what I can get here. Been recommended a 164W Jones Frontier, 157 Salomon Dancehaul, 161 Bataleon Camel Two, 162 Yes Standard. United Shapes Cadet is also avalible.
To be paired with either Burton Cartel or Union Force, as well as the Vans Aura Pro.
First off, what min/max waist width should I be within?
Which of these boards would you recommend?
And, are there any other board I should focus on instead?
In advance thank you for any and all help, and in general for making this site!
Hi Christian
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of size, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. So with the Dancehaul, I think it’s getting a bit on the small size. It is the kind of board you typically size down for and if you had smaller feet/boots, then sizing down 6cm would work, but the amount you want to size down is relative to your feet/boot size and with 11.5s, I wouldn’t size down that much for the Dancehaul.
The 164W Frontier could work. It’s not super surfy, but it has a bit of a surfy element to it, for sure. Size-wise, it’s good length-wise, IMO, but it may be erring a little too big in terms of the length/width combination. It’s wider at the inserts than the waist width would suggest, so it’s really quite a wide board. While you need a wide board with 11.5s, for sure, IMO, you can still go too wide, particularly if you’re at the higher end of your length range.
The Standard isn’t a board that I would call surfy. It’s not locked in or anything, but it’s not really surfy either. It’s also really wide – even wider than the 164W Frontier. With it being 162, it could be doable, but I still think the sizing isn’t ideal and it’s not surfy.
We haven’t tested the Camel Two, but based on other similar Bataleon boards, I think it would be the best match of any of those. And I think the 161 would be a really good size. Similar Bataleon boards we’ve found to feel quite surfy (likely owing to the 3BT, in part), so I think this fits your description well – and should work really well size-wise too.
Some other options include:
– Bataleon Cruiser 161 – you could also go down to the 159 in this one if you wanted to err a little shorter. It’s wider than the Camel Two, so you could go a little smaller if you wanted more maneuverability, but the 161 would work well size-wise, IMO.
– GNU Hyper 159W – this is on the smaller side for you, IMO. But it’s doable and this is a nice and surfy feeling board.
– Jones Mind Expander 162 – not quite as surfy as the Hyper but still quite a surfy feel
Hope this helps
Hi again Nate, and thx for your fast reply!
One thing I do like about your review is width at the inserts, that is something all brands should state imo.
At 11,5 US in Vans, what would be my min / max width to stay within?
I havent thought about the Gnu Hyper, as I kinda was looking for a new brand to try out. But local shop sell these, and I have send them a mail. But, at 159W could be a bit narrow or short?
The importer of Jones did not recommend the Mind Expander for me, said it was the wrong kinda board for my use. Also did not recommend the Frontier. Kinda weird to not promote your own goods, but also something I find interesting if they dont want me to get a bad experience. Havent tried any Jones before, but always thought the Hovercraft looks like the definiton of my kinda board. Just think it wont fit my level, other gear or use.
If going by stats alone, how would you think the Bataleon Camel Two and Cruiser would differ? Also, how is the grip on harder / icy conditions?
In advance thanx!
Well, went with the 159W GNU Hyper! Thx for your input 🙂
You’re very welcome Christian. Apologies I couldn’t get to your other question sooner – was a crazy weekend!
Very strange that the Jones importer didn’t recommend them. In particular the Mind Expander, IMO, would be a good bet for what you’re describing. I think the Hovercraft would work for your style as well, but it is a bit stiffer and little more advanced than anything else we were looking at. But I think the 159W Hyper should work well for you. And it’s good for icy conditions. It should be a really good width for 11.5s, IMO. So no worries with width, I wouldn’t imagine. In terms of length, it’s on the shorter side for your specs, but it shouldn’t feel tiny or anything.
Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for your website and your reviews according to snowboard. I’m looking to get a second versatile snowboard like a directional twin all-mountain with good floating in powder. Then i’m interested in volume shift board or to get mid Width board to improve floating. I guess Yes standard would be the perfect one, but i’m wondering which size to get. I’ve red according to Volume Shift board (Yes Snowboard) to get a size down. My normal all mountain size is 161 with normal width (US10). How many cm to get down with volume shift board (Yes Standard) in order to have playfulness and nice floats into powder days ? 159 or 162 ?
Many Thanks,
All the Best,
Gaétan .B
Hi Gaétan
Thanks for your message.
If you’re typically a 161 and have a US10 boot, then I would go down to at least 159, the 162 is going to be too big, IMO.
Depending on your specs, the 156 could work. Hard to say for sure without having your specs. The 159 is going to float better in powder for you, but the 156 will feel more playful, so depending on which of those you want to optimize the most. But if you could also let me know your height/weight, that would help. And if you could also let me know more about how you like to ride – e.g. do you want to be able to bomb fast on this board? go in trees? do you do any freestyle tricks – butters, ollies, boxes, rails, jumps etc? Or anything else about how you ride.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I was thinking to go with 159 on Yes standard too. I’m riding all mountain with some freestyle and backcountry. I have all ready a board for all mountain oriented freestyle for groomers and park/rails session but for now I would like an All mountain more rigid for floating in powder (Jones Mountain twin 160, Yes Standard 159, Bataleon Thunderstorm 161) in order to improve slashing and floating points with Freestyle specs. I like the Standard according to shifted volume for powder with short length for spins and jumps, as my usual all mountain length.
I’m 6′ tall and 188 lbs and US10.
All the best,
Hey Gaétan
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah I think 159, given it’s going to be your more powder oriented vs your other all-mountain freestyle board. The 160 Mountain Twin and 161 Thunderstorm would also work as well. But yeah, if you wanted that little bit shorter length for spins, then the Standard 159 gives you that.
That’s all good points, I will probably go for Yes Standard 159. Many thanks for your reply and advices according to my questions. I will share your website to friends.
All the best,
Gaétan B.
You’re very welcome Gaétan. Thanks for spreading the word and I hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all your detailed and thorough product reviews. I really appreciate the effort you put into them.
I’ve read through all the comments and still struggling to decided between the 159 and 162 for the Yes Standard.
I’m 6’2, 190 lbs, and have size 12 boots. I currently ride a 159W Forum Youngblood from 2010. I used to be really heavy into the park for jumps and rails, but my riding style has shifted more towards All-mountain freestyle, back bowls, playing around in the trees, and bombing some groomers. I’ve been happy with my 159W for most of these areas except for the back bowls, powdery days, and icy days.
Which size would you recommend?
Hey Dylan
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 161/162, so that would be closer to the 162. Because of your boot size, the 159 isn’t wide for you, so size-wise, it’s going to feel similar-ish to your 159W Youngblood. I say similarish, because it looks like that was a softer board and was an all-rocker profile. Rocker and softer flex tend to make a board feel a little smaller, so I think you’d still find the 159 Standard to feel a little bigger than that. It’s stiffer and has camber. I find it really good in icy conditions, so I think you’re going to see an improvement there regardless of size. And an improvement in terms of bombing/stability at speed, even in the 159.
In powder it’s hard to say for sure, but the 159 vs the 159W youngblood may not have any powder advantage. One thing with all rocker is that it tends to float decently in powder. I mean I doubt the Youngblood would have ever been great in powder, as a twin freestyle board, but the rocker would have helped it be better than it otherwise might be. The Standard isn’t true twin, but it’s pretty close to being a twin. Using it in the Slam back inserts, I would say would give it a little advantage, as you wouldn’t have been able to set the Youngblood back as far as that. In the 162, because of that extra surface area, I imagine you’d feel quite a noticeable improvement in powder.
For trees, I imagine the Youngblood was fairly easy to weave through the trees on. All that rocker and that soft flex probably made it pretty quick/easy to get from edge-to-edge, I would imagine, but having not ridden it, I couldn’t say how it would compare to the Standard accurately. But my guess is that it will take a little more work in the trees than the Youngblood was. Though I don’t imagine it would be worlds apart if you were on the 159. On the 162 you’d likely notice a bigger difference.
So, long story short, both are doable for you, IMO. The 159 is already going to give you the improvement in icy conditions and for bombing/back bowls, IMO. So I think the main deciding factor is whether you want to get better tree (159) or better powder (162) performance.
I can see why it’s a tough choice!
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey there.
I’ve been shopping for a new snowboard for a little while now, but it’s been difficult given some of my wacky stats. I’m looking for an all mountain or aggressive all mountain board. I would say I’m an intermediate to advanced rider and I typically ride groomers or hard snow.
My main problem is my boot size. I wear a 10-size boot, while being 215 LBS and 6,1 height (185 cm) The first board I was looking at was the YES standard 162, but I think it may be a bit too wide for me. Any recommendations, on sizing or a different board altogether?
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. The Standard is wider than normal though (and even more so than the waist width suggests). This width isn’t typical of a regular 162. It’s wider than a lot of wide sizes. If you were to go with the Standard (or Standard Uninc, if you wanted to go a little more aggresive), then I would size to the 159 to compensate for the extra width. Even the 159 will be wide for your foot size, but taking off length will help to compensate for that. But if you wanted to go with a board that was good for your foot size in a longer length, like 162-164 kind of thing, then there are definitely options.
Some more aggressive options include:
– Jones Aviator 2.0 – 162
– Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 160 (reason I’d go 160 and not 163 for this one is that it’s also a bit wider than normal, though not as wide as the
Standard. The 163 would be doable, but it’s getting pretty wide by that point.
– Burton Custom X 162 – though note that this is really aggressive, if you wanted to go less aggressive, the regular Custom is still quite aggressive but more manageable.
– Nitro Team Camber – 162
Or if you wanted to stay a little more mellow:
– Jones Mountain Twin 160
– Arbor Shiloh Camber – 162
Hope this helps you with some options
Hi Nate!
I would really much appreciate your feedback regarding the following:
I have been snowboarding for the last 3 years (about 15 days a season) with rental boards.
I went to my local shop to get my 1st snowboard and after reading your review I went for the Yes Standard size 153 (The shop owner highly recommended this size for)
The thing is, size guides for snowboards are not easy to understand for newbies and After reading about sizes I realized I should have ordered size 156.
The shop owner says I can only switch to what he has in stock and fits my size which is:
– Bataleon Goliath+ size 158W
– Jones mountain twin size 157
The shop owner says I would enjoy the size 153 Standard and that it doesn’t matter much because of the mid-bite and the profile of the snowboard.
My stats are:
Height: 5’11”
weight: 185lbs
Shoe size: 11.5US
Riding style:
Groomers, 70% blues (or reds in Europe) with 30% blacks (and some black diamonds)
I Do little Powder and no park.
I do freeride when I’m alone and Freestyle with friends.
I usually ride quite aggressive
Please help me by telling me the risks of taking the 153 Standard board or taking 1 of the other boards (and say which one).
Hi Jean
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. The Standard is a board you can ride a little shorter, however the main reason for that is because of its extra width. With 11.5s that’s not going to be an issue for you. So I would go 156 at the smallest. You could go 159. I think you’ll find the 153 too small. Especially given how you describe your riding. If you were going to be using it predominantly in trees and/or in the park, then you might get away with it, but to use as a one-board-quiver, I would be debating between the 156 and 159 with your specs and how you describe your riding. One problem with going to one store is that they will want to sell you something that they have in stock (which is understandable from their perspective but not necessarily the best outcome for you). At least when you buy online you typically have all the options you can think of and you just get it from the store that has what you want, rather than getting something that the store has.
That said, I think the Goliath+ 158W would be a really good option for you size-wise and for the style you’re riding. Note that Bataleon boards feel a little different to the average board, because of the 3BT. But I find it’s something you can get used to pretty quickly. For more details on what we thought, check out our Goliath+ review here.
The Jones Mountain Twin would also work, but in the 157 it would be too narrow for your boots, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I just wanted to Thank you and let you know I appreciate the time you took to answer.
It may sound silly, but you gave me peace of mind! I have no one who KNOWS snowboards that could’ve offered me a solid advice.
By the way,
I miss-typed the size for the Jones Mountain twin board, it was offered to me at size 159W but still, I think I’ll go with the Goliath+ thanks to your awesome review! 🙂
Take care!
You’re very welcome Jean. Hope it treats you well and that you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
First of all, thanks for creating this amazing site!
I am 68kg, 179cm tall
My boots: Burton Swath US size 10 (a bit too small for me, will get 10.5 in the future)
Binding: Union Strata
I am a low intermediate rider, looking to get a new snowboard. I have been using my friend’s board (Capita Outsider). I like to try a bit of everything, and currently working on my switch and carving. And would like to get a board which works on hard snow and icy condition.
The boards on my shortlist are:
Yes Standard: what size should I get for this board? is it a good board for my level?
Jones Mountain Twin (all mountain): Since it is hard to get Yes board here in Japan, I am also considering this. How is this board comparable to Yes Standard? What size?
Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker: How is this board comparable to Yes Standard? What size?
Do you have any other board suggestions?
Thanks
Hi Eddie
Thanks for your message.
As an lower intermediate rider, I would say the Terrain Wrecker is your best bet. The Standard and Mountain Twin still doable though, if you wanted to go one of those. I would say the Standard would be the most challenging, but only by a little bit versus the Mountain Twin. Then the Mountain Twin a little more challenging than the Terrain Wrecker. Again not by that much though. Compared the Outsider, I think you would find any of them easier to ride, IMO. So, if you’ve been going OK on that, then I think you’d be fine on any of them.
The Mountain Twin is quite similar in terms of overall performance vs the Standard. For more details check out our Mountain Twin review. A slightly different feel, but similar overall performance.
Size-wise, I would be looking at:
– Standard: 153
– MT: 154
– TW: 154
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply.
I think I will go with Jones MT if I could not get Yes Standard, since I prefer camber board. How does MT do in the aspect of switch riding compared with Yes Standard? You said that the MT is slightly different feel from Standard, how so? Just curious.
I found a pretty good deal on Jones MT (far east limited edition 22-23) here in Japan, do you know if it is the same spec-wise?
Thanks
Hi Eddie
Just to note, the Terrain Wrecker does have camber in it, it’s just that it’s rocker between the feet, then camber under the inserts and towards the tip/tail (which is what we refer to as “Hybrid Rocker”. That said, the Hybrid Camber (camber between and under feet, then rocker towards tip and tail), that the Standard and MT have does feel more like full camber than the TWs version of Hybrid Rocker, IMO.
The MT is good riding switch, IMO, particularly if you set it up in a centered stance, which is easy to do as they mark out a “freestyle” stance on it, which is centered on effective edge (you still have a slightly longer nose than tail, but that’s all outside the contact points, so you don’t feel the difference much on harder snow).
That’s the first I’ve heard of the Far East Limited version, but having had a look at the specs, the only difference that I can see is that it shows a narrower reference stance. Otherwise looks to be the same.
Between the Standard and the MT, the feel isn’t super different, but the MT has a slightly mellower feel and feels a bit lighter. The flex is a little more even from tip to tail and through the middle as well, with the Standard being a little stiffer in the middle and a little softer in the tip and tail, in comparison.
Thanks for detailed explanation!
so for MT far east version, should I size it up to 157 since I will get a US 10.5 boot in the future (68kg, 179cm tall) . I am a little worry about the heel/toe drag. If this is not a problem, I do prefer a shorter board.
Thanks again.
Hi Eddie
For your specs, I think the 154 is the better bet. It’s a little borderline width-wise with a 10.5, but you may still be OK. Assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width, you’re looking at around 263mm at the front insert and 264mm at the back insert. If you’re riding with a flat back binding angle (like 0-6 degrees) and carving quite deep, then it could be borderline for boot drag. But otherwise should be OK, if you get a lower profile boot. When you get new boots, pay attention to the profile and try not to go with something too bulky and you should be OK. If you have aspirations to eurocarve or something like that, then you may need to go wider but in that case, I would go for the 153W (a new size they brought in for the 2024 model) rather than the 157. I’m not sure if the Far East version comes in the 153W though.
Hi Nate, thanks for your work! Could you, please, advise what size of this board is the most suitable for me? I’m 141 lbs, 5.4ft an 7.5 us size. As for experience, I think I’m close to advanced level. Mostly, I prefer riding on mid-high speed, explore some uneven terrains near the slope. For the next seasons I’m looking for a stable board that allow me to progress further on the slope and give me an opportunity to have fun on more advanced freeride terrains.
P.S. My current board is a stiff 148 stick with 24.2 width
Hi Artem
Thanks for your message. Your best bet is the 149, IMO. Everything would be getting too big for you, IMO. Note also that while the width on this is 245, there is a bigger contrast between the waist and width at inserts on this compared to the average board, so it’s a little wider than it looks. Without knowing what your current board is I couldn’t say how much difference, but it’s likely to be more than 3mm wider at the inserts vs your current board. So, overall, depending on the effective edge of your current board, it may feel a little bigger. It could still work for you in the 149 for sure. But if you don’t feel like you want to go bigger than your current board, then it might be better to look at something a little narrower in that 148-150 range.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Just wondering if you have had any time on the new YES Pyzel? I have been riding the YES standard last winter but I want to try something new for the upcoming season. I was just wondering if you noticed any major changes from the standard when riding the Pyzel. I loved the standard for its ease of use and I know the Pyzel may demand a bit more aggression but just wondering if I would struggle. Would class myself as intermediate/advanced and looking at going to the 160w in size 11/12 boots compared to my standard which is 159 in size 11/12 boots.
Cheers!
Hey Finn
Thanks for your message. Unfortunately we were unable to test the Pyzel last winter. So can’t give you much to go off from personal experience. On paper, it looks like it would be a little more aggressive, with it’s full camber profile. The flex is rated the same as the Standard. Hard to say if it feels the same flex-wise, having not ridden it, but it’s likely to be similar.
Size-wise, the 160W is probably your best bet, though if you were in 11s, you’d probably be alright on the 158 (if that length was OK for you). According to YES it’s 270mm on the back insert and 274mm at the front insert, which is typically wide enough for 11s, in my experience. The 160W looks to be around the same as the Standard 159 at the back insert and a little wider at the front insert. If in 12s, then I would say the 160W is your best bet.
Hope this gives you something more to go off
Hi Nate, what size of Yes Standard/Uninc would you recommend for 179cm / 70kg rider with 11US boots size. Thanks
Hi Piotr
Thanks for your message. I think the 156 would be a really good size for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
And what about bindings? Any recommendations? I am teared between Cartel X and one of the Union (Atlas?) Do you have any comparison?
Take care
Hey Piotr
The Cartel X and Atlas would both work with the YES Standard and Uninc. If you end up going regular Standard, then you could also go a touch softer flexing if you wanted to but those would still match the regular Standard. Between the Cartel X and Atlas, it kind of depends on how you’re wanting to be riding. If you’re looking for a bit more in terms of board feel, then I’d be leaning Cartel X. You can compare our score breakdowns on them here. If you were to go Standard, then the Strata from Union would be a good bet, but I would be leaning Atlas or Falcor, if you go Standard Uninc.
Hi Nate – firstly, your site is brilliant and I find your reviews honest and trustworthy – big thank you from me!
I was hoping you might be able to guide me a little. I’m a new snowboarder with only about 2 weeks of experience so far (7 days longest consecutive), and able to ride greens and most blues confidently. I don’t have much desire to ride park or do large jumps, and like carving resort groomers here in New Zealand (which don’t have powder and can be icy or slushy at times).
I recently had my loved YES Basic replaced under warranty and have a store credit to get a replacement board, which got me thinking about getting something more suited to groomers than park, with top of my list based on your review being the YES Standard. The sales guy in store however, thought that something directional like the Bataleon Cruiser might suit me better, and assures me that it is actually a very easy ride which rarely catches edges, so could suit my skill level.
My issue is that from your review of the Cruiser it might be a bit tricky for my level of experience.
What are your thoughts on whether the Cruiser would be a potential match, and if not, can you suggest anything better than the Standard for me (or should I just get it!?). Note that my other favoured board (Ride Shadowban) is sold out here and the store not stocking Ride anymore.
Many thanks in advance for your reply!
Hi Jon
The Cruiser isn’t super hard to ride or anything, but I would typically recommend it to more experienced riders. It could work. But to be fair, the Standard will be similar in that sense, so you could go Cruiser, if you were thinking of Standard anyway. That said, the Standard will do better in icy conditions, though the Cruiser isn’t bad there.
If you wanted to go more directional but a little easier to ride, then you could look at something like the GNU Hyper, Jones Mind Expander or Jones Frontier.
If you’re not really riding switch, then you can certainly go with something more directional, but it doesn’t mean you necessarily have to either. So the Standard could still work – or if you want something a little easier, the YES Typo or something like the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, could also work (and both good in icy conditions).
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
first of all, thanks for all the great reviews!
I bought the YES Standard 159 last year and I really love the board. So far I have used the board with my old Flow binding and Burton boots from 2008 and now it’s time for an upgrade. I am therefore looking for a suitable binding and also new boots for my YES Standard.
My boot size is about US11-12 and I would describe myself as an advanced rider doing mainly groom and riding at rather fast speeds.
What do you think of the Burton Step-ons for the YES? I find the convenience kind of attractive.
Cheers,
Seb
Hi Seb
Thanks for your message.
The Step-Ons (either the regular Step On or Step On Genesis in terms of bindings and Photon or Ion in terms of boots) would be a good flex match to the Standard and your style of riding. In terms of whether you’d like them or not, I think it depends on the feel you’re going for. I find the Step On system really locks you in place, so there’s not a lot of freedom of movement, besides the flex of the baseplate and highback. So, I find them really good in terms of response and for carving and bombing. But not so good when it comes to board feel, in terms of pressing, ollying, etc. So, if you think you’d like that more locked in feel and don’t really do a lot of freestyle stuff, then I think you could like them.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all your content and advice, it’s truly a godsend for the average boarder. I’m 6’0” and 175-180 with a size 11 boot. Almost never do park, but do enjoy some side hits. Don’t hit trees too often either, mostly steeps and groomers with the occasional off-piste action. Is the 159 too big for me?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, so I think it’s doable. It’s still a little wider than ideal for 11s, IMO, but it’s certainly doable. You have the same height/weight specs as me and I really like the 156 and find the 159 too big. But you do have bigger feet than me and that makes the 159 more doable for sure. So it’s a close call between the 159 and 156. If it was me, I think I’d still ultimately go 156, even if I had bigger feet, but then I’d be doing more trees and freestyle stuff than it sounds like you’ll be doing.
One more thing to take into account in your decision. Not entirely the same as your case, but I had someone recently who went with the 162, being 5’11”, 220lbs and with an 11 boot. They were using it mostly for freeride oriented stuff too. They said they found it a bit big and thought the 159 would have been the better bet. Doesn’t mean you have to err smaller, but just another piece of info to include to give you more perspective.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much Nate, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to messages like mine and so many others. I ended up going with the 156. Can’t wait to take it for a spin next winter.
Your hard work does not go unnoticed!
You’re very welcome Steve. And thanks for your kind words. Hope the Standard treats you well!
Hi Nate, firstly thank you for all your in depth reviews
I’m a strong intermediate rider, 83Kg, size 10 boots, 173cm tall.
I currently ride a yes typo 156W which is comfortable, soft and easy to ride.
I primarily ride in Australian conditions, which are icy, lots of heavy wet snow. However I am also going to ride in Europe next March 2024. I ride the odd black run, but mainly love side country, blue groomers and a little POW. I don’t care about park.
I am looking for an all mountain/freeride board, that can handle chunder and uneven terrain, that can do a little pow (not a pow specialist) and is good in icy conditions. I want to charge through terrain, take a legitimate step up from my typo without going to aggressive. I only ride 1 week per year, so I am typically not board fit by the time I snowboard.
The boards on my shortlist are:
Yes standard – worried this isn’t enough of a step up from typo?? Is this significantly better at crud and chunder than the typo? Your thoughts?
Yes Standard Uninc – was advised by the store that this board is more aggressive and can buck off the rider due to the carbon build. Is this board significantly better at crud and chunder than the standard? Or is standard sufficient, as in the stiffness of uninc not required/required?
Soloman Assassin Pro – Was told this was a good option, slightly more forgiving than the standard uninc. However not an ice specialist. Your thought?
Jones Stratos – I think this is too aggressive but was recommended this board and advised that this board is more forgiving than the standard uninc. However more versatile in powder.
Do you have any other board suggestions?
Appreciate your feedback
Regards
Ben
Hey Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard is a significant enough step up, if you’re just looking to take a step up without going too aggressive. And does handle crud/chunder noticeably better. Not world’s apart, but noticeable nonetheless. The Standard Uninc is another step up in crud/chunder, but it is also more aggressive – you do have to be more aggressive with it to get it to respond. Though I wouldn’t say it’s too much more aggressive than the Assassin Pro. Maybe a touch. But better in icy conditions, IMO. So if you were to go more aggressive, given you need that extra icy performance, I’d be leaning Standard Uninc, but I think Standard is enough of a step up for what it sounds like you’re looking for and that’s what I’d be leaning towards.
I found the Stratos less forgiving than the Standard Uninc – not much in it, but I didn’t personally find it more forgiving. It’s noticeable stiffer in my experience. I think it otherwise works for what you’re describing, but given you still want something htat’s a bit forgiving, I’d still be leaning Standard. If anything I’d look at the YES PYL, if you were wanting to go a bit more directional. It’s stiffer than the Standard Uninc, but softer than the Stratos – but the camber profile is a little easier to manage vs Standard Uninc, so I think that would be doable. But still a bit more aggressive than the regular Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much for your feedback,
I am now leaning towards the standard 156 and I need to select bindings.
I am deciding between the Burton Cartel and Cartel X. (I currently have Malavitas on my typo and love them).
I was recommended Cartel X, I am told that the stiffness of Cartel X is the same as the old Cartel from a few years ago. Do you believe that Cartel X is a good choice, or should I just stick with the Cartel?
I thought that Cartel X would provide future versatility in the event I buy another freeride board. I just want to ensure that Cartel X are not significantly stiffer than Cartel (i.e. too stiff).
Thanks again
Ben
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the 156 is a great choice size-wise for the Standard for you. In terms of bindings, I would be looking at 6/10 to 7/10 flex to match the Standard best.
In terms of the Cartel. By my feel, the new Cartels are a touch softer than the Cartel’s of old, but they’re nothing super different. They have a noticeably softer highback than the Malavita, but they have a stiffer baseplate. So whilst the highback makes them seem quite soft, if you were to just judge from twisting the highback, they are still around a 5.5/10 flex overall, by my feel. Similar overall flex to the Malavitas. Just that the Malavitas have a stiffer highback but softer baseplate. The Cartel X are stiffer, but they are still a good match for the Standard, and that’s what I would personally go with on the Standard between them and the Cartel. By my feel they are more of a 7/10 flex (Cartels of old, more like a 6/10 flex – so stiffer than the new Cartels, but not as stiff as the Cartel X – at least not what I felt from them). But given that you already have the Malavitas (and whilst they are a different feeling binding to the Cartel for sure), I think the Cartel X makes more sense in your quiver, and I think it’s a better match for the Standard. The Cartel would certainly work with the Standard, but I’d go Cartel X.
Wow this is wonderful advice, thanks again Nate. You are the most helpful snowboarding enthusiast on the internet
You’re very welcome Ben. Thanks for visiting and I hope your new setup treats you well!
Hi Nate
Thanks for the amazing reviews, its helping a lot choosing the right gear for me.
I’m looking to buy my 1st snowboard but i am stuck with a few options:
Yes Standard / Yes Typo / LibTech TRS / Jones Mountain Twin
To give you a little context, i have 15 days of snowboard in total and consider myself probably low-end intermediate rider.
Starting to learn how to carve on easier slopes (can go down more difficult ones mostly with skidded turns). I do catch an edge here and there…ouch!
Ride mostly groomers (would say 90%) and some off piste/powder here and there.
I am looking for a do-it-all snowboard to hit small jumps in the groomers but that can also support my progress in carving, as i do want to ride a bit faster and keep up with my skier friends.
I mostly snowboard in Andorra and North of Spain which means that hard snow/icy conditions are quite frequent.
I’m 180cm tall ~ 5’11” / 74 kg ~ 165 lbs
My boots: Ride the 92 (6/10 flex) / Size 9
No bindings yet but looking to buy Union Ultra/ Strata / or some rear entry options like Flow NX2-TM or Nidecker Supermatic.
What you think would be the best fit for me?
If you have any other board suggestions, i’m all ears. I didn’t go super deep into my research yet
Thanks!
Hi José
Thanks or your message.
I would be leaning Typo from that list. It’s the best option for your level, IMO, and offers something you can still carve with. And it’s really good in icy conditions. The other 3 are doable though if you did want to challenge yourself more, but would be a steeper (and likely slower) learning curve. Some other options to consider include the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker and also check out >>our top 10 intermediate snowboards which has some really good options in there for what your describing (the Typo and Terrain Wrecker both in there).
Size-wise for the Typo I would be leaning 155.
If you were to go Standard, I would err shorter than that – down to the 153. The rest 154s most likely, though going up to 157 is a possibility but more of a challenge for right now. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, but would be erring shorter, given your current level and particularly for wider boards like the Standard and to a lesser extent, the Mountain Twin.
Which bindings would depend partly on which board you ended up going with.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!
Thanks for the swift reply!
I agree with you that the typo is probably the best fit for my level right now, thanks for the help!
I just have some doubts regarding the size.. Im in between 155 and 158.. i do want the board to be somewhat playful but i also like to point forward sometimes and get some speed without having to pray for my life haha.
Im also planning to ride a bit more from now on (between 15 to 20 days a season) which i think will help me progress a bit faster.. Between my 1st and 2nd season there was a 3 year gap bcs of the pandemic and it felt that i had to relearn everything..
I also surf regularly and im the shape which i believe is also that supports the progress in snowboarding..
Do you think the 158 will be too much?
Which bindings do you think would fit the Typo and the ride 92 boots? Looking at supermatics/ flow nx2 and union strata
Thanks again for helping make the right gear choices mate!
have a nice day ahead!
Hi José
The 158 is doable. Between the 155 and 158, the 158 is going to be the steeper learning curve, but it will give you more stability at speed, and probably the most optimal size, once you do get to a more advanced level. Given that you’ll be riding a decent amount, you’re likely to get to that more advanced level quicker than if you were going to be riding less days, so the 158 will become more optimal quicker. But I do think you’d find the 155 more enjoyable for right now. Given you’re in shape and surf, that does help your case towards the 158.
In terms of bindings the Supermatics and NX2 are borderline too stiff for the Typo/your level, IMO. Particularly the NX2, which I’d say is too stiff (the NX2-TM not as stiff – more like Supermatic’s 7/10 flex). I would be leaning Union Strata as I think it’s the best match to the Typo and for your level. Note, if you go too stiff a binding for the board, it can result in the board feeling “twitchy”. Not sure the Supermatic/NX2-TM would be stiff enough vs the Typo for that to happen but possibly could feel a bit twitchy with those on it.
Hi Again Nate!
Thank you very much for all the detailed answers, I just bought the Typo and went for the 155. Gave a little thought about going to the 158 but i don’t want to get ahead of myself and grab a board I can’t handle yet. Besides, i still have some work to do on the fundamentals and riding switch, learning ollies, etc, so believe I made the right choice 🙂
I went a bit deeper on the bindings research and saw a few different options that might fit my setup.
Burtons Cartel
Rome Vice (probably the ones im more torn too)
Bent Metal Transfer
NOW Select PRO
Union Ultra and Strata
which one you think would be the best fit?
Thanks again for all the help!!
have a nice day
Hi José
I haven’t ridden the Transfer in a good few years, but it would do the trick, but when I rode in them, they felt softer than they’re rated. Would still work on the Typo, but the softest of the bunch I’d say and be erring towards the others. We haven’t tested the Vice but on paper looks like it would be a good match. The Select Pro is probably the stiffest option there, but still in range for the Typo. I felt them at a 6/10, bordering on 6.5/10 flex. The Ultra, Cartel and Strata would all be good bets, IMO.
Thanks so much for your responsiveness and time. Just reading your thorough responses has already helped me.
I am a very old, Northeast rider, about 20+ years of 8-10 times per year, I’m 5’7 160 lbs-ish, size 8 boots. These days I only ride blue trails, no park except for small hits occasionally. When there is some light powder I will hit it on sides and in trees when there is plenty of room around the trees.. I’m hoping to extend my riding a few more years.
I have been on the same GNU Rider’s Choice for 10 years and the rocker/camber profile and magnetraction pretty much worked for me. I ride switch when I need to get through moguls or because I’m on a long flat and have been on my toe side too long and I need a break. I find my board is kind of unstable or spinny at times (feels like I’m only riding on the center third of the board), especially at slow speeds, and at high speed I need to be on edge pretty good to hold a line and feel stable, probably center rocker? But the board has worked good eough, easy to turn, edge control on ice, ability to ride switch when I need it and I even could ride it through some small powder out west. I haven’t been paying attention to new options until now and asked myself, is this board best for me at this point?
I started out looking at Mervin boards to stay in my comfort zone and found new hybrid profiles with more camber, like the Terrain Wrecker. Then I discovered volume shift boards and flat camber like the War Pig that were supposedly still easy to turn and stop. Then I discovered Never Summer, somewhat different hybrid and edge control but great reviews and the Harpoon and Shaper sounded so good. Did I want to go directional and set back since mostly what I was riding was cruising down a blue groomer? Of course the more I read and asked around online, the more questions came up about these great boards:
1. did I really need rocker between my feet, especially with my ability now? (TW)
2. would a wider board be too much work to initiate turns especially short turns with my little size 8 hobbit feet? (Warpig, Never Summer)
3.would a camber centered board catch edges when I’m tired or going slow?
4. would a short or tapered tail be too hard to ride switch when I needed to (Harpoon)
5. would a big long nose directional feel like it’s in my way on groomers
Then I went on Reddit and someone suggested Jones Frontier, GNU Hyper and Yes Standard. I saw this review and the discussion on this thread and thought I should look into these, which I have and apparently so have others. I like what I see but except for the GNU these are going camber vs my safe, but not so great rocker.
It also occurred to me that a lot of my questons had more to do with how a board rides at slower speeds, which is the opposite of what most young bombers ask, but is my reality in the waning days of my riding. I just don’t have the muscle strength I used to and want to avoid careless riding falls because I break easy.
What are your thoughts about needing rocker centered vs camber, wider vs narrower, centered twin vs setback with some taper and the boards I have looked at. The Yes seems to check off pretty good for how and where I ride and my interest. Sorry for the long story, would appreciate your thoughts.
Hi Bob
Thanks for your message. I think the Frontier, Hyper or Standard could all work for you (a bit more on that below). Some thoughts about your questions.
1. I don’t think you need rocker between the feet necessarily, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad thing or that, as a more advanced rider, that it’s something you necessarily don’t want either. It’s a preference thing a lot of the time. Based on how you’re describing your relationship with your Rider’s Choice (of that vintage I’m thinking it’s probably a C2 profile), I think going with something like C2X makes more sense, to give you that little bit more stability.
2. My instinct is that wider boards might not suit you that well with your boot size. Unless you were to size down quite a lot. But then you’d be going quite short in terms of effective edge. I like some volume shifted boards, but I wouldn’t personally go with one as my daily driver or one and only board and with your foot size, I feel like having one could be fun if you went really short with it, but then I think you’d be missing something at times with that really short effective edge, so I’m not feeling it as a daily driver for you
3. Most hybrid cambers (camber between the feet (and often under the feet) and rocker tip and tail) don’t feel too catchy. Not from my experience. It can depend on how much rocker they have, how pronounced the camber is, etc, but for the most part that rocker towards the tip and tail makes them less catchy than full camber. I would say the equivalent of a lot of hybrid rocker boards. Again, it depends on a few things. But I’ve experienced some hybrid rockers that are more catchy (usually when the rocker between the feet is really subtle) than some hybrid cambers and visa versa. Given that you’re used to hybrid rocker, it would likely take a little bit of time to get used to the feel, but I think you would be fine so long as you don’t go too camber dominant or too stiff. I find that stiffer boards, particularly when the torsional flex is stiffer, tends to also increase the likelihood of a board feeling catchy.
4. Does make it harder. I don’t think you need to go true twin or anything, but going with something that’s not as directional is a safer bet, IMO, if you’re going to be riding switch a reasonable amount.
5. A really big nose can sometimes feel a little cumbersome when not in powder. I don’t tend to notice it too much unless it’s quite pronounced, but it can feel a little awkward having a ton of nose in front of you, when conditions are harder.
With boards like the Frontier and Standard, you’d be switching to a hybrid camber profile, but I’ve never found either of those catchy – and they’re fairly easy going boards, without being ultra soft or playful or anything, so still good stability as well. But they’re not difficult boards to ride, IMO, and are good to ride at slower speeds, IMO. Whilst not ideally suited to switch, they are both more than capable of it (particularly the Standard). The Standard is a semi-volume-shifted board, so in terms of sizing, you’d need to be careful with that. For your specs, I would be looking at the 153. Even the 151 would be a possibility, but at that point it’s getting a little on the short side, effective edge-wise. The Frontier is a wider than average board too, so something that I would consider sizing down for as well (though it’s a board you can ride a little longer in general, so that somewhat negates that). Depending on the size that your currently riding and are used to, will depend on which I would consider the best size for the Frontier. If you could le me know what your Rider’s Choice is that would be great, particularly given you’ve been riding as long as you have, size-wise we don’t want to go too far different as you’ve adapted yourself to that size.
The Hyper would be a fairly safe bet, given what you’re used to. Not quite as good for riding switch, but doable. Something like the Terrain Wrecker (TW) would give you a little more control riding switch and might be more suitable. It’s a little softer flexing and a little more playful vs the Hyper but not by a whole lot, but I find it (TW) not quite as good at speed or on a carve as the Hyper. But not a lot in it.
The Shaper is an interesting option. It’s got a little taper but not overly directional and actually pretty good for riding switch. It is a little volume shifted, is the only thing, but you might get away with the 153. But if you could let me know what size your currently riding, I can have a closer think about the suitability of it in that size.
Hope this helps
Sorry I left that out 2011-12 GNU Riders Choice 154.5
More specs for my RC
Hey Bob
Thanks for the extra info.
It’s a tough call for the Frontier. I kind of like the 152 for you, because I think the width works better but you’d be dropping a lot in terms of effective edge – the 156 is doable but on the bigger side, when taking into account width vs your foot size. YES Standard probably still leaning 153 – again going to feel quite a bit wider than your current board. Size-wise, I really like the Hyper in 154. For the TW the 154 would work well too all be it quite a bit wider than the Hyper.
Note that Mervin boards tend to have less of a difference between waist width and width at inserts than average, whereas YES and Jones boards tend to have a bigger difference than average, e.g. YES Standard 153, 253mm waist, but will be more like 268mm at the inserts vs the TW 154, which has a 255mm waist, but around 262mm at the inserts – both assuming a roughly 550mm (22″) stance width – if you ride them with a narrower stance, the width at inserts will be a little narrower – typically around 2-3mm difference for every 40mm (1.5″) narrower or wider). For the boards mentioned (all assuming a roughly 22″ stance width):
– Standard 153: 253mm waist, 268mm inserts
– Frontier 152: 249mm waist, 267mm at back insert, 263mm front insert
– Hyper 154: 250mm waist, 258mm back insert, 257mm front insert
– TW 154: 255mm waist, 262mm inserts
I like the narrower boards for you, size-wise as it allows you to keep a bit more length without going too wide for your boots.
I would also look into the Bataleon Thunderstorm (new for 2024), which is a little different with the 3BT, but I think it would work really well for what you’re describing – or the Goliath or Goliath Plus. The 3BT makes turn initiation really easy and makes them really catch free. And also even if they’re on the wider side, they are easier to manage in terms of turn initiation. They take a little more to get them into a carve, because that engagement point feels a little further away. But once I got used to them, I really liked that feel.
The Nitro Team Gullwing in 155 also comes to mind as an option. It’s on the narrower side for a 155, so would allow you to keep a bit more length. The Team Gullwing is a Hybrid Rocker, but it’s more stable feeling, in my experience, than the likes of the TW or Hyper. The Slash Brainstorm in a 154 is also a narrower option that comes to mind. Capita Outerspace Living in a 154 as well.
Don’t want to muddy the waters with too many options, but want to give you all the options that I think would work well for you.
Thanks. I was looking at a Standard selling on Ebay and asked the owner some questions. He bought the 153 with a size 8 boot and didn’t feel like it was too wide. He ended up buying a PY which suited his style more but said he didn’t really notice much difference between the boards
I think I usually ride 21.5″ stance, sometimes narrower depending on how my back knee is. BTW not sure if you notice the stance range differences between Mervin and others, every size Hyper and TW have stance between 20.25 and 25 inches, where Yes ranges from 18.9-22.1 for the 153 and goes up from there for each bigger board. I never even thought to check!
I also checked my board today for stance and noticed my rocker seems more pronounced, think it warped over the years? .I bet the C2X will be a big help.
When I read your reviews I usally check:.
1. Turns, especially ease of turns at slow speeds and skidded turns
2. Trees, which is also a good indication of ease of turns
3. Ice/hardpack grip
These are my bottom lines.
It seems overall looking at the boards I asked about, the Hyper, TW and Standard were all highly rated for those 3 but you didn’t mention low speed turning, trees or skidded turns for the Standard…maybe in older reviews? Seems right now based on size, turning and ice grip the Hyper and TW stand out, do you think Standard is siginficanty lacking in nimble easy turns especially at slower speeds ? Are any of the new boards you listed also especially good at those 3?
Thanks again for your thorough response and I will look at the other boards. You do a great job. I hope my questions are helpful to you and others.
Hey Bob
I’ve always found the Standard to be good for slower speed turning and in trees, so long as you size it right. e.g. with 10s, and a typical all-mountain size around 159, I’ll always go 156 for the Standard and in that size (which I believe is the most appropriate for that board, for my specs) it’s always turned pretty easily for me. Maybe not quite as easy as TW and Hyper but still easy.
Hi Nate, I’m back. How about the Yes PYL? I saw your reponse to a guy on that review who is also currently riding a GNU RC 154.5 and same size as me although a size 9 boot rather than my 8 and was intrigued. It’s a narrower board than the Standard. Would I find it similar to the GNU Hyper and Jones Frontier in ease of turning?
Hi Bob
The PYL is a bit stiffer than the Hyper/Fronter, which typically means more effort to turn, at slower speeds. The PYL is easier to turn that you’d think for it’s flex though. So I think it’s doable. Given your boot size, I think it’s borderline too big at 156 (which is it’s smallest size), however, it is something that you can ride a little longer with it’s more freeride shape, so it’s doable. Width-wise, it’s 250mm at the waist, 260mm at the front insert and 258mm at the back insert, so it is fairly narrow, which helps. Not great for riding switch, but more than doable.
Thank you again for your time and thorough answers.
You’re very welcome Bob
Hi Nate,
Love the reviews! My Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 154 broke last week and I am looking for a new board. I’m 155, 5.7, size 9, in-between high-intermediate and advanced. I like carving, moguls, trees, doing unimpressive 1s and 3s on small/mid-sized sidehits and pointing it down here and there.
Looking to buy an all mountain board that is kinda similar to the TW. Something that is still quick and nimble edge to edge at high and low speeds, but is a bit more stable at high speed and carves just a bit better than the TW. I tried the Dynamo 156, but it felt a bit heavy and I hated the magnatraction in soft snow (btw the magnatraction feels great on my TW in both icy and slushy conditions, idk if the profile of the board is the reason?). Sooo generally something a bit more aggressive than the TW, but still kinda playful and forgiving on shitty sidehits and lazy runs at the end of the day. I need a board that is good on ice, but is not too bad in powder (5-10 inch max).
I’ve looked through all your reviews and the Standard seems to be the best choice. However, I wonder whether it is better at speed than the TW? and also how would you compare the pop for small/mid size sidehits? Also, what size would you recommend?
Any other boards that come to mind?
Thanks!
Imanari
Hi Imanari
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would tick all the boxes for what you’re describing. In my experience, the Standard is more stable at speed than the TW. It doesn’t quite have as much pop as the TW, so that’s the only question mark really, IMO. Otherwise, I think it would be a good bet.
If you wanted to stick with a hybrid rocker, like the TW, then the Nitro Team Gullwing could also be an option. Or if you were OK going more directional, something like the GNU Hyper could work. But not great for riding switch.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the quick reply! The Nitro seems like a great option, however, I think that I want to gradually move towards camber boards, as I am starting to enjoy carving and jumping more and more (and from what I understand, camber snowboards are generally better for that).
How would you compare the Standard Uninc to the Standard and the TW? Does it have a better pop than the Standard and do you think that it is going to be too big of a jump moving from TW directly to Uninc? I worry that it might be a bit too aggressive and slow edge to edge. Wonder if that’s actually the case…
What do you think about the T Rice pro? Is it good for the riding style I mentioned or is it just another Pro board that only T Rice lovers buy 😀 ?
Kind regards,
Imanari
Hi Imanari
The Standard Uninc is a little more aggressive and a little bit more of a step up than the Standard, but I wouldn’t say it’s too big a leap from the TW. It’s only marginally stiffer than the regular Standard and I didn’t find it slow edge to edge at all, personally. The Standard Uninc isn’t as good as the Standard (or TW) in powder though, IMO.
Size-wise I would go 153 for either the Standard or Standard Uninc, and in that size I don’t think you’d find it too aggressive. Certainly more aggressive than the TW, IMO, but nothing crazy aggressive or anything.
Hi Nate,
LTNS! I have a question that might be a bit dumb, but I don’t know who else to ask. I decided to buy the 153 Uninc. 2024 BUT I WANT that sexy colorful base! I have to purchase the board online, as nobody sells YES where I live, but I don’t know how to select the colorful base (in all online stores there are two versions of the base – colorful base with black pig and black base with colored pig. Sooo how do I select the base I want? Does it depend on the size? I tried to contact YES (via IG, FB, CS and email) and a few stores, but no definitive answer at this point…Please help!
Hi Imanari
Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a definitive answer either. I think it’s just a lucky dip. It could be depending on size, but I think with “flip flop” bases like that it’s usually just lucky dip. One thing you could try is: when you order it, if there’s somewhere where they let you write a special note, you could ask them there “if possible could I please get the one with the colorful base and the black pig” or something like that. Or you could message the store after you buy and give them your order number and make the request. That’s the only thing I can think of.
Gullwing and Brainstorm both look promising. How are they on ice compared to the Yes, Mervin and Jones boards I am looking at.
Gullwing seems very similar to Hyper size wise but you feel it’s more stable than the Mervin C2X of the two boards? Stable at high speed or slow speed or both?
BTW I kind of throughout the Frontier because of the goldilocks issue, 152 too small, 156 too big?
Hey Bob
I would put the Gullwing and Brainstorm just a tier below the Standard, TW & Hyper in terms of icy edge hold. On the same tier with the Frontier.
From my experience, the Team Gullwing felt just a little more stable than the Hyper/TW.
Yeah, that’s my instinct with the Frontier – the goldilocks paradox applies!
Thanks Nate. The Bataleon boards also look great, but I’m seeing comments about them in reviews that they are not so great on ice/hardpack? A step below all of the above or in the 2nd tier with Frontier, Gullwing and Brainstorm.
Hi Bob
I would say Bataleon boards on average are a step below tier 2. To put it into numbers, typically I would say 3.5/5 for Bataleon in icy conditions vs 4/5 for the likes of the Frontier, Gullwing and Brainstorm.
Hey,
I can’t decide between the Salomon Assassin and Yes Standard. I’m a good intermediate. I cans ride switch, jump, spin and carve well. I want to lern butters and ground tricks but still be able to go carving. I like my ride playful. Wich one do you recommend?
Cheers
Hi Elie
Thanks for your message.
Both would definitely work for what you’re describing, IMO. I would personally lean towards the Standard, but don’t think you can really make a wrong choice between them. The Standard is a little stiffer than the Assassin, in my experience, so if you’re a lighter rider, then the Assassin could be the better choice, but it would also depend on how you sized them. They’re both sized a little differently too, so that’s something else to be aware of. Would be happy to give you my sizing opinion. Would just need your height, weight and boot size (already have the style you want to ride and your ability level, which I also take into account for sizing).
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
thanks for your answer. My weight is around 80kg, my boot size is 26,5-27cm and my height is 178cm. I was thinking to get a 156cm board. Initially I wanted to buy the The yes great uninc, but the 156cm version is sold out everywhere where I’m from. The 159cm is still available but I think it is to long, especially because I learned to snowboard on a very small snowboard and also because I love freestyling. I’m a bit concerned that the Standard is not as playful and less good to butter and switch on as the assassin. (I switch quite a lot)
Hi Elie
Yeah, I think the 156 Standard would be your best bet. I would typically put you on a longer board, but with the Standard being wider and your preference for going smaller, I would go 156. For the Assassin, the 159 is probably the better size, but the 156 is in range, given you like to err smaller. Note though the Standard in 156 will feel bigger than the Assassin in 156.
For butters, the Standard is easier to butter than you’d think. Even though overall it feels stiffer than the Assassin, in my experience, the tip and tail are softer than the rest of the board, allowing you to butter quite easily. 156 Assassin vs 156 Standard, I found both just as easy as each other to butter.
The Standard is very good for riding switch, IMO, so that’s not a big factor between them, IMO.
The thing that might lean towards the Assassin is sizing. Whilst I think the 156 is a good size for you for the Standard, because you want to go with something smaller, the 156 Assassin might be more your size.
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for you answer, very kind of you to take the time 🙂 much appreciated.
Ah ok, so without taking into consideration that I like smaller boards, you would put me on a 159cm on all 3 boards?
I heard that taking a board a bit smaller makes the ride more playful, and I like playful over speed. That is also why I was leaning more towards the All-Montain-Freestyle category (Assassin & Greats uninc) over the All-Montain in which the standard is.
Would the yes greats uninc in 159cm still fit for my size and ride style? Or would the 156cm be better for freestyle and playfulness?
Are the Assassin and the Greats uninc more freestyle and playful then the standard?
Hope I’m not asking to many questions. Thanks again, your answers have been very helpful.
Cheers!
Elie
Oh, I just realized that I gave you my wrong boots size. My size is 26-26,5cm (8-8.5US)
Hi Elie
No I wouldn’t go 159 for the Standard (or the Greats) for you. As I said (you may have misread), I would go 156 in the Standard. And whilst 159 is probably the more pure size for the Assassin, you could certainly go 156, if you prefer smaller boards. As per my last line of my last comment:
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I would be leaning Assassin 156 vs Standard 156 for you, given you want to go smaller and more playful, with the Assassin 156 being a smaller feeling board than the 156 Standard.
I didn’t mention the Greats, because you only have the 159 available and I think that would be too big for what you’re describing. I would actually go 154 for the Greats for you, with what your describing. It’s a board you can size down even more for. If you have the 154 available go with that, otherwise, I would be leaning 156 Assassin.
Hi Nate!
Hope your season’s been awesome! First off, really appreciate your review and insights on all these boards!
As for my question, I’m sure you’re asked this a ton but it’s quite lengthy to skim through :p
I recently purchased and rode the Yes Standard and it’s been a blast as something to do everything in. My question is, if you could have one board only between the Yes Standard, Jones Mountain Twin, and Capita Mercury, what would you pick and why?
I’m asking this because I own the Mercury, and will be demoing the Mountain Twin soon, looking to pick only 1 out of the 3.
(I ride in the west coast but will be moving to the east coast soon. I enjoy carving/turning, some pow, and trees/bumps. Recently getting into side hits/small-med jumps, and improving my tree riding)
Thanks man!
Wilson
Hi Wilson
Thanks for your message.
In your circumstances, and in many others, I would be leaning Standard. For a couple of reasons, but a big part is icy conditions performance. Since you’re moving out East, which, from what I hear, tends to produce icy conditions regularly, having that extra performance in icy conditions would be good. The Merc/MT aren’t bad in icy conditions either but the Standard is a step up, in my experience. It’s also good for everything else you’re describing. I preferred both the MT and Standard for trees and side-hits over the Mercury, it’s still good for those but I’d lean MT/Standard for those. For speed/higher speed carving, I’d be leaning more Mercury, but again, there’s not much in it.
Overall, I’d go Standard, but none would be a bad choice, IMO. Given you’re going to get a chance to ride all 3, what you like to ride the most should also be considered, but if you’re finding it hard to choose still after having ridden all 3, then I’d go Standard to get that little better performance in icy conditions.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Nate,
Need your help on sizing with the standard im torn between 151 and 153. Boot size 41 weight 73kg height 165 cm. Using the board as my all mountain swiss army knife. Speed, slashing, carving and popping of side hits and rollers. I have a greats for park riding. Bindings are now select pros.
Hi Matthew
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call for sure. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but given that the Standard is wider, and for your boot size, I would size down a little from that. Just whether sizing down 2 or 4cm makes more sense. I would be leaning 151 for you. However, I think it also depends on the size of your Greats. If you’re on the 151 Greats for park, then I would err a little longer, given you won’t be using this in the park and given that you can size down even more with the Greats. If you’re Greats in the 149, then I’d more inclined to go 151 with this.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, thanks for your feedback.
You’re very welcome Matthew. Happy riding!
Hey Nate thanks for all your reviews and hard work. I’m here from your mountain twin review and trying to find a fun board for all mountain riding somewhere in between a gnu rc3 and Jones stratos. I love the edge hold playfulness of the rc3 and stability of the stratos for charging. I’m a 35yo, 5’10, 220lbs, try to ride 22-23”stance, intermediate to advanced rider with 20 yrs experience. My top priority is confidence inspiring edge hold in icy Ohio/ New York conditions and then carving, then pop/ playfulness. I also prefer but camber/cam rock profiles. I probably spend at least 75% of my time on intermediate/expert groomer’s trying to carve as hard as I can and pop off any rollers/side hits I find. Maybe 15% riding park hitting small to medium kickers and 50/50 boxes or rails. The last 10% being out west riding groomers, slack country and praying for powder. I have a park specific board, I have a powder specific board. I’m looking for a playful all mountain directional board to ride 90% of the time on icy Ohio/ny conditions in between a 158wrc3 and 161w stratos. Looking at the 159 yes standard. Comparing it to rossignol one, libtech dynamo, gnu antigravity and libtech ejack knife. Thanks again for your time reading this and responding, I see you go through all your comments.
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard Uninc (the full camber version of this board), is your best bet. The biggest advantage of this over the Standard Uninc, is that you get better powder performance from this. But if you already have a powder specific board, then I would be leaning Standard Uninc, for what you’re describing.
Whilst the Standard Uninc is a little more aggressive than this, going with the 159, I think you’ll find it playful enough for when you want to get playful, but will give you more on carves than the Standard (or the Mountain Twin). Certainly more playful than the Stratos, but more stable than the MT or RC C3, IMO. So I think it would sit in a really good middle ground for what you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate
Thanks for the response. I looked it up and decided to buy.
Thank you
You’re very welcome Joe. 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.
Hi Nate,
your reviews have been very helpful to me so far. You give personal insights found nowhere, even at physical stores.
I am an intermediate rider looking for a good one-quiver board that can last at least for 2-3 seasons. I mostly go on resorts/groomers as I am usually in a group of half snowboarders and half skiers. Occasionally went to powder and off track (I’d like to progress here), never gone freestyle but could in the future.
Following some advice and your review, I am leaning to the Yes Standard (other options Nitro Team, Burton Process, Salomon Craft/Assassin, Yes Typo).
The only thing is that I am quite doubtful about sizing, I am 6’1, 180 lbs and 11 foot sized and in the past I have rode pretty much everything in the range 156-162 (also wide). I’d be leaning for the 159 but I would really appreciate your specific advice.
Also, if you can give me quick comparisons with the other boards I mentioned (minus the Typo) in terms of forgiveness, ease of carving and stability.
Thanks in advance!
Marco
Hi Marco
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for the Standard, I’d be leaning 159, but the 156 wouldn’t be wrong either. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 161. But even with 11s, the 159 will be on the wide side for your boots, so sizing down a touch makes sense. Given that you’re also an intermediate rider, you could potentially size down again to the 156. The 156 would give you a little more ease of maneuverability and better for butters and other freestyle stuff – but at the cost of some powder float and stability at speed.
Vs the others you mentioned:
Nitro Team: Standard a little more forgiving than the Team. Ease of turns a little easier on the Standard but in terms of overall carving performance I would give it to Team. Team a touch more stable at higher speeds, but not much in it (this is assuming you mean the Camber Team, since you didn’t mention gullwing).
Burton Process: Process a touch more forgiving than Standard in some ways. The Camber profile can feel a little more catchy, but the softer flex of the Process counteracts that. Overall pretty similar when it comes to both ease of turns and overall carving performance. Standard more stable at speed, in my experience.
Salomon Assassin: Really similar in terms of forgiveness – couldn’t choose. Really similar in terms of ease of turns as well. Overall carving, just a shade better on Standard, but again really close. Standard a little more stable at speeds, in my experience.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the quick reply.
Yes, I meant the Camber Team as I’ve tried gull wing profiled boards and wasn’t really enthusiast about that (especially when put into steep terrain).
To be more precise since I use metric system, I am 185cm tall (6,08 ft), 81 kgs (178 lbs in average) and I have Ride Anchors size 11 (love them). I usually bring a small rucksack with me with few things and some water. I already know that my “tabular” snowboard length is around 160, but I am pretty uncertain with this board.
Stated simply, what would you choose?
Thanks Again.
Hi Marco
If it was me with your specs, I would go 156 for the Standard because I personally like to err a little smaller – and the main reason for that is that I like to ride a lot of trees and I like to do flat land tricks and sidehits and butters etc a lot when I ride – versus a lot of speed. I do like to ride fast too – and the 156 wouldn’t be too unstable – and still decent enough in powder at your weight. But if I was to own the Standard as my one board quiver, I would be using it more often for trees/freestyle than I would be for high speed and powder. So, I would err smaller. However, if I was to get this board and be using it mostly for riding fast, on a bigger mountain and in powder when I got it – and wasn’t doing a lot of trees or freestyle, then I’d opt for the 159 for sure.
So I think it depends on how you see yourself riding most of the time. You’re a little taller than me and with bigger boots, basically the same weight, so I’d be more likely to lean 159 if I was you than I am with my smaller feet (US10 or sometimes 9.5).
Thanks Nate. Precious Information. I am quite sure I’ll go 159 since I am really not a lot into trees riding and freestyle, not yet at least.
Basing on your analysis, I got that 159 is a more “all-mountainish” choice for me. I spend about 70% of the time on groomers with firm/hard snow, so I’ll invest a little in maneuverability to get a little extra of stability at speed.
Have a good one and thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome Marco. I think that’s sound reasoning. Hope it treats you well. 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.
Hi Nate!
I’ve tried out the Standard on some Italian Alps hard snow. This board basically EATS groomers. I found myself riding faster than other good snowboarders without knowing why. Also felt great on the short powdery traits I’ve come across and for the limited buttering I am capable of.
Size-wise, 159 is my board. The generous tip and tail width wasn’t too hard to handle. I felt it sufficiently playful and very stable a board, also on moguls. (Haven’t tried 156 but I basically found 159 the right decision for me and for the context I’ve been trying it into).
Didn’t feel too stiff and aggressive overall… I think the reduced camber length has a role in that.
Thanks again for your precious information.
Hi Marco
Glad to hear you’re enjoying the board. And thanks for your update and insights. Very much appreciated.
Hi Nate,
Really great info on the site. Appreciate all your work. I’m caught between a few options and hoping you may have some advice. I’m deciding between
Yes Standard
Yes Typo
Terrain Wrecker
Yes Basic
I’m in an intermediate rider – mostly groomers, a little powder. I like a mixed bag of things. Some speed (but not bombing down), carving (but not deep yet), being quick edge to edge and keen to learn some buttering in the future. The board would need to handle some hard/potentially icy snow.
I’m 6’2, 185lbs and in size 11.5US ThirtyTwo Lashed Double Boas with Union Force bindings.
Thanks.
Forgot to mention this would be my first non-rental board (previously rented Endeavour Ranger, Lib Tech Cold Brew, Jones Frontier)
And any advice around board sizes would be great. Thank you again.
Hi Phil
Thanks for your messages.
Please see my reply on the YES Typo review.
In addition to that, as you hadn’t mentioned the Standard, the Standard could work too. It’s more of a step up and not quite as nimble in terms of quick edge-to-edge. It’s not slow edge to edge either, IMO, but just takes a little more effort to get it moving quickly between edges vs the Typo and TW. Size-wise, I’d be leaning 159 for the Standard for you. The 156 would be doable too. It’s quite a wide board, so the 156 should be wide enough. Going down to the 156 would give you more maneuverability but at the expense of some powder float and stability at speed. I really like the 156 and I’m similar specs (6’0″, 180lbs, size 10 (sometimes 9.5) boots). But your bigger feet are what makes me lean more towards 159 for you. If I had 11.5s, I would be more inclined to ride the 159.
YES Basic probably not. Partly because you mention powder and speed. You’d be taking a drop in powder and speed from the likes of the Typo and TW. It’s really quick edge-to-edge but I think you sacrifice too much else where, for how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
First of all I want to thank you for all the great content you’re putting out there, I’ve learned a lot from your page.
And now here’s my dilemma:
I currently own a Yes Typo which I guess helped me get to a solid intermediate – love the board.
But now I’m looking for something to progress even further with.
I’ve narrowed it down to Yes Standard, Yes Greats and GNU Riders Choice C2X.
My riding style is somewhat playful with the occasional pow chasing and slope bombing.
I guess, I like doing a bit of everything – lately even more on the freeride side.
What would be your recommendation?
Cheers,
Marius
Hi Marius
Thanks for your message.
I would go with the Standard, based on what you’re describing. It’s better than the Greats and Rider’s Choice in powder, IMO, and a little more freeride leaning. It’s still on the more freestyle end of the all-mountain spectrum, IMO, but less so than the Greats and Rider’s Choice.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks for the amazing reviews! Going with a Yes board because they’re good in icy conditions according to your reviews. Torn between Typo and Standard. Is there a big difference between the two? I’m a high beginner/low intermediate rider. Only groomers for now. Want to try to learn ground tricks, side hits this season. 5’4, 140lbs, Size 8 boots.
Hi Van
Thanks for your message.
I would go Typo for what you’re describing. It’s a really good board for high beginner/low intermediate looking to progress, IMO and will be easier to learn ground tricks & side hits too. Typo a really good option for what you’re describing, IMO. Size-wise, the 149 should be spot on, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Getting back on the board after 12+ years. Stopped riding in 2010 due to baseball neck injury which was a huge bummer .
Was skiing/riding since i was 6. Now 41yrs and wouldnt you know it my 5 year old asked for a snowboard for christmas out of the blue so got him a setup.
He’s been taking lessons at small local mountain and I need to get back out there to ride with him.
Kept last board i own and luckily found it in storage.
2006 Option Joni Makinen 158cm – all mountain/freestyle board, i dont think option is in business anymore
im 5’10” and now 210lbs, 10.5-11 boot
Id say i was intermediate +/advanced back in the day. Was moving from straight park to more all Mountain/freestyle before I had to stop.
Friends who still ride recommended YES typo/standard and never summer, i think he has NS harpoon. They ride northeast but do big mountain out west couple times a year. Im not there yet.
Loved the Option, made you work for it, definitely not beginner board, blast to ride.
With board being 17yrs old, me being 41yrs old now with two kids, any recommendations on board that 1) is playful enough i can go out with the boys, and 2) can rip it up in Northeast with adults when/if i get somewhat back to where i was.
Looking for board that i can ease into but if/when i get back to close to where i was, i wont be looking to upgrade right away. Not super technical but won’t be holding me back if i want to get after it.
Was thinking Yes standard…..
Will be riding local, MA/NH/Maine to start. So icy/hard conditions are a factor.
love your site and any advice is appreciated !
Mike
Hey Mike
Thanks for your message.
YES Standard would work really well for you, IMO. It’s a really good all-rounder and is pretty much exactly what you’re describing – something that’s not too technical or difficult to ride, something you can still ride slow and it not feel like a tank or like it needs some speed under it to hum, but can get more aggressive and ride fast etc, when you need it to. Doesn’t hurt that, in my experience, it’s really good in icy conditions as well.
I think for what you’re describing that the Typo would feel a little too playful for what you’re looking for. When riding with your kids I think you’d really like it. And slower speeds, playing around, but wouldn’t be as good as Standard for when you’re looking to ride it a bit harder. I think the Standard would be a really good balance between the factors you’re looking for.
Size-wise, I think the 159 would be a good size for you. I would put your “standard all-mountain size” closer to 161/162, but with the Standard being wider than typical, I would size down to the 159 – I think it would be just right for your specs and what you’re describing. I think with width and length combined the 162 would be too big. The 156 a little small for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply and great advice. Was torn between 159 and 162, forgot about the width of these boards. Just based on how i ride i agree the 159 is best choice.
Thanks for the advice.
Love the site. Definitely awesome resource for getting back on the mountain after so long.
Appreciate it.
Mike
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope it treats you well and hope you have an awesome season!
Nate,
Any recommendation on bindings for the 159 Standard?
Thanks
Mike
Hi Mike
I would go with something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range.
If you want to get a little more in terms of carving and speed, then I’d be erring towards something on this list.
If you wanted to go a little softer/more mellow, then something around 6/10 flex from this list is a good bet and still a good flex match to the Standard.
Hi Nate,
How can you compare this board to Ride algorithm?
Pop and dampness
Greetings Rob
Hey Rob
The Algorhythm is, unfortunately, a board that has eluded me so far, so I haven’t had a chance to test it, so unable to compared them, unfortunately.
Hey Nate,
I really like your great review of the YES Standard and because of your review I’ve decided to go with the YES Standard as my next board.
I’m unsure which size is the right for me. I’m 5’11 (180cm), my weight is around 150-155lbs and my shoe size is US11-12 (EU45) depending on brand.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts and suggestion!
Cheers,
Sebi
Hi Sebi
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 is a good bet for your specs. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156/157 and with your boot size, you don’t really need to size down for this board, so you should be good with the 156. The 153 is a possibility too, but I would only go for that if you were in a US11. If it’s an 11.5 or 12, then I’d go 156 for sure. And I think that’s the most natural length for your specs too – assuming a relatively advanced level of riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for this amazing site. I’ve spent too many hours diving into all the reviews, and finally I’ve landed on the YES Standard. I’m now in between two sizes, 156 and 159. My specs are similar to yours: I’m 6″ and weigh 180 lbs, but I have a larger boot size of 11.5. My skill level is intermediate and my style is all-mountain – typically riding groomers in semi-high speeds to keep up with my skier friends. I do also enjoy the occasional small features in the park and would like to progress there. Love pow but it’s almost never available where I ride. I’ve been riding an old 159W full camber board, but want something a bit more nimble and playful that will facilitate in progressing my riding to quick 180s on side hits, butters like nose rolls etc, which is why I’m considering sizing down a bit. Do you think the 156 will be able to handle speed and carves on groomers with enough stability in my case? I like the idea of a more playful board, but don’t want to sacrifice too much on stability either. I’m not worried about the width, as the YES Standard has the same stance width as my current 159W. Would really appreciate your advice on this one.
Hi Markus
Thanks for your message.
Given your boot size, I think the 159 is the more pure size for your specs. With 11.5s not as much need to size down for this board. That said, I think the 156 would be wide enough for your boots, so it’s a possibility. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 159/160, so again, the 159 the more pure length for you. But the 156 wouldn’t be sizing down a huge amount – and when it comes to stability at speed, you should feel that the same as what I did, even with bigger feet. So, whilst it’s never going to be an out and out bomber, I did find it stable at speed. Now I’m not someone who looks to break the land speed record when I ride or anything. I’m not riding like 60mph or anything when I’m testing these boards, but I do make sure to get up to around 45mph when speed testing, conditions permitting, and this board is stable enough at those speeds for me.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply. Based on your comments, I ended up ordering the 159 🙂
You’re very welcome Markus. Hope it treats you well. 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.
Hey Nate, awesome reviews man! I think I’ve narrowed my search for a new board down to the yes standard after scouring this amazing site. Now I need help with sizing. I scrolled through all the comments and can’t decide. I’m 6’3″, 215-220, with size 11 burton photon boots. I’d say I’m at the beginning of intermediate level 6, trying to get better and more comfortable in the park hitting small jumps, 50/50’s and 180’s are coming along nicely, and am getting really enjoying buttering and ground tricks. I’m coming from a Salomon Craft 158 only board, and can’t decide between the 159 or 162 Yes Standard? I ride mostly midwest, so lots of Ice and hard pack but I take a trip out west every year and love powder and tree runs. Will the 162 be tougher to progress with park, buttering, 360’s and what not for when I’m riding most of the time? I know I’m above the weight range of the 159 but the length seems more comfortable to me, not sure if 3 cm even makes that much of a difference so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Kolton
Thanks for your message.
In my experience 3cm can make a significant difference. If all that length was added outside the contact points and the boards were the same width, then I don’t think it would make that much difference, but when it changes the effective edge and the width is also difference, the 2 sizes, in my experience can feel quite different. In this case the 162 has 2.5cm more of effective edge, so that’s quite a lot of difference to effective edge. And on top of that you not only go longer but also wider – in this case by quite a bit.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 164, but given how you describe your style, I would certainly size down from that. And then I would also size down for the fact that this board is wide in the 159 and 162, even for 11s. So both are certainly within range. If you’re style of riding was more predominantly bombing and powder, I would say go 162. But in this case, given your style, I would be leaning 159. The 162 still wouldn’t be wrong, but my instinct says 159 for you for this board, given what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! Just the assurance I needed, ordered the 159!
You’re very welcome Kolton. Hope it treats you well and that you have an awesome season! 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.
Hi Nate. What size would you recommend me on Yes Standard. I am 75kg with size 9 boots. Inrermediate level. I’ll use this mainly on groomers since we dont get a lot of pow in our area. What bindings would you recommend as well for this one?
Thank you.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
Could you also let me know your height. Whilst weight and boot size are more important than height for sizing, IMO, I still like to take height into account, because it does have a leverage value.
Im 5ft 7. Sorry didnt put the complete info.
Thank you for the fast response.
Appreciate you big time.
Hi Mark
For the Standard for you, I would go 153. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 156/157, but with this board being wider than usual, with size 9s I would size down a little. I think the 153 would be just right.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Your site is a great resource and lots of fun for daydreaming.
I’m thinking about getting a Standard. But I’m curious about the Arbor Satori. I know it’s a very different board. Any chance you’re going to review it soon?
I’m 44, in the PNW, and learned on camber in the early 90’s. I mostly ride with my kids on groomers and get out maybe 10 days a season. I don’t ride switch, I like to carve.
My Burton Flight Attendant is too much board for me. I want something I can ride slow and easy when I need to, something I can get sloppy on when I’m tired. It needs to handle crappy conditions at the end of a busy Saturday on Mt. Hood and hold an edge in hard PNW snow-ment. But also make me smile when I want to lay down some nice turns. And I’d like it to pass muster in powder.
170lbs. US men’s 9 boot.
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow reply, have been super busy last couple of days.
I think the Standard would be a really good fit for what you’re describing. We haven’t tested the Arbor Satori yet, hopefully get a chance to this winter. On paper it looks like it could work. It certainly looks softer flexing than the FA – softer than the Standard too. It’s more directional than the Standard, but given you’re not really riding switch, that shouldn’t be a concern and will help it in powder. Given it’s all camber, there’s no rocker to help in in powder, but the directional shape and taper will help – and it sounds like it’s got some 3D shaping (what Arbor call uprise fenders) which will also help. So it should be at least above average in powder, based on specs.
Hope this helps
Hi! I read about half of all the reviews and then thought I would try to ask for some advice before I read more.
I want a snowboard that is good in off pist when I get the chance to ride some, but not so stiff that it I can’t do butters well, I love to play like that and want to be able to ollie/jump over a rope too if I feel like it. Since it’s not snowing every day and I’ve got kids now I would say that is equal as important as a really good offpist board. I don’t have money enough for both skis and two snowboards (and equipment for the kids) so I need one snowboard for everything.
I grew up with skiing (started when I was 5), then switched to snowboarding when I was fourteen and did a couple of seasons in my twenties snowboarding day in and out for months I France and Canada, mainly offpist but later in spring more or less only in the park, I could jump all the big jumps I wanted when I was in my twenties, never any good with spinning though, and now I’m a little too scared so I won’t jump the biggest jumps anymore (and 15 years later the biggest jumps are also quite a lot bigger..) Now I haven’t been snowboarding for some years and it’s time (and I have the opportunity) to pick it up again! but more like a couple of weeks / year maybe 4 in total, not 3-4 months like before. One of my favourite brands way back was Sapient, I remember I had a board from them that was really good for both ollies, butters and offpist, but they are out of business since long ago.
I’m 173 cm tall and weight about 67 kg and I’m 37 yrs old.
Best regards (from Sweden)
Bertil
Hey Bertil
Thanks for your message.
Based on what you’re describing, I think the Standard could work. It’s something you can certainly ollie and butter with and it’s a decent board off piste as well. It’s not the poppiest board out there, but it’s got reasonable pop. Size-wise I would put your “all-mountain” length at around 154. For the Standard I would look at either the 153 or 151, depending on boot size. If you could let me know your boot size that would be great.
Quite a few options for what you’re describing, but some other notable ones include:
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Bataleon Goliath Plus
– Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker
– Slash Brainstorm
If you were interested in any of those and looking for sizing opinions, I’m happy to give mine but would just need your boot size.
You could also go more directional with something like a mellow freeride board, which would gain in terms of off piste, but lose in terms of buttering.
Hope this helps
First of all, thank you BOTH for this amazing website and for taking your time to reply! I bought the yes standard 🙂 found a nice deal and just went for it. When I was waiting to get my parcel I was jumping up and down 🙂 it was a long time since I was that excited 🙂
Can I use the drop back feature on the Yes Standard with Burton Malavita?
Which boots would you recommend with the Yes Standard and the Malavita bindings?
Bought Malavita in medium and Cartel in small at the same time as I ordered the YEs Standard (Cartel in small since Malavita was not available in small).
Went to Burtons flagship store in Sthlm today, measured my feet and tried the Photon boots for fifteen minutes as well as the Ion Boa and tried them on medium and small bindings.
My left foot is 25,5 cm, my right foot is 25 cm.
Tried the boots in a medium and in a small Malavita binding, I can use a medium binding but it’s not optimal.
Burtons small bindings suits my boot size better.
So if someone out there is like me, walking around with a couple of 25-26 cm feet thinking they’re almost in between small and medium, you’re not, go for Burtons small bindings 🙂
So now I think I will return or sell the bindings I ordered (and got) when I bought the Yes Standard. Feels like I rather want the Malavita binding in small then in medium and somehow I think I rather want the Malavita then the Cartel.
Last but not least lesson learned today was that trying boots were a bit of shock. In the last couple of years I’ve got used to only wear vivo barefoot and Joe Nimble shoes (both sneakers and boots), in short both brands make shoes with plenty of space for the toes, wider in front then even most wide sneakers and super soft, you can easily roll the shoe into a ball.
I had my last snowboard boots for quite a while so I had been snowboarding two seasons (2*90-100 days plus a couple of weeks for some years to follow) AND I also think todays boots are much stiffer then boots 10-15 yrs ago…
Now I feel a little bit overwhelmed, especially if I’m to walk around in every pair of boots for fifteen minutes before I try the next pair… quite time consuming with all the brands and models out there! Please help!
🙂
(Bought a 153 cm Yes Standard, felt right since my old board is 153 and I really liked that one).
Hi Bertil
Firstly, I would have gone 151, given your boot size. The Standard is a wider than normal board and likely wider than your previous 153, so sizing down a little would have made sense. That said, the 153 is still doable, just on the bigger side for you when you take into account length and width.
Good to know re small and medium burton bindings when you’re on the cuff like that. With 9.5 to 10 boots (depending on brand) I don’t get the chance to try small bindings, so that’s great information. Can you let me know, was that using Burton boots?
Snowboard boots will always feel stiffer brand new and they will soften up over time. They won’t keep their flex as long as hard ski boots, for example. After breaking in they will feel softer and more molded to your feet. That said, not all brands agree with all feet. Sometimes it’s a case of trying some different brands, as some will be more compatible with your particularly foot/ankle type than others. The Photon are a good flex match for the Standard/Malavita combo. The Ion would work but are a little stiffer and not as good a match, IMO, and it sounds like your preference is to not go that stiff. Also note that even though the aim of Mondo is to match your foot length, it’s not always the case. In fact in most cases I find you’ve got to go above your mondo. For me, I have a mondo of 27.3cm left foot and 27.0cm on my right foot. So based on Mondo I should be 9.5 every time, but very few brands work in a 9.5 for me. I usually have to go to a 10. So if you were only trying on 7.5s, then it would be worth trying on 8s as well. Did they measure your feet for width as well? If it’s the case that you have wide feet, then going with a wide model or a brand that tends to have a wider toe box might be a good way to go.
Some more on boot fitting:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Wide Snowboard Boots for Wide Feet
Oh, and yes, you can use the slam back inserts on the Standard with the Malavitas.
Hi Nate!
Thank you once again for all of your feedback!
Hope I’ll like the Yes Standard even though I bought the 153 🙂 great to know that I will be able to use the slam backs with Malavita. Looking forward to test all of it! We had some snow today, soon our local hill will open up hopefully.
Malavita:
Now I’ve ordered Malavita in small. Burton had a deal on Malavita in small on their swedish website , they were grey in color (last item on their website) so I guess that’s last seasons Malavita binding. On their website I got the impression that the only difference between last season and this season Malavita is the colour.
Can’t reply on your comment so I reply on this one instead to answer your question.
Reply to your question:
Yes, we tried two Malavita bindings in small and medium and only with Burton boots since I was in a Burton flagship store (would have been interesting to try different brands): with the Malavita s and m bindings we tried the Ion boa and the Photon model, both in size 8. I first tried a 7,5 Photon, but I felt directly that I almost had to curl my left big toe in it “to fit”. I couldn’t see how it would be a good fit even if we used an owen to heat that boot up.
Malavita Bindings small / medium:
I could use a medium binding with both boots in size 8 since there’s so many options with moving the straps using a screwdriver, but I didn’t have so much options for adjustability with the medium binding, it was only on “hole” that worked for the front strap (to get it fit perfectly on the boot) when we moved that one to different positions, and then I had about 1 cm left on both the straps when had the boots really tight in the bindings (I almost had to push the straps to the bottom).
Boots:
I guess I’m looking for something that is quite stiff, but still have great dorsiflexion, so that I can squat somewhat normal (and not only like was in a squat smith machine). Comfy goes without saying 🙂 maybe I’m looking something a little bit wider.
Burton boots:
One thing I found interesting with the Ion Boa is that although it is a lot stiffer in many ways, it felt like it was much easier to dorsiflex (dorsal flexion) in the Ion Boa compared to the Photon.
This is something I find quite important since it’s simple biomechanics that you need to be able to have good dorsiflexion to be able to squat. So from that perspective I would say Ion was better actually. But it was really tight around my ankle.. 🙁
I haven’t measured how wide my feet are, good idea!
That dorsiflexion “bonus” didn’t come straight away though I had to wear them for 15 minutes and I also did some “weird” stuff pretending I was snowboarding in the shop, jumping , jumping around on my toes, standing on one leg jumping etc first. Then I had one 15 min warm Photon on my left leg and another 15 min warm Ion Boa on my right.
My guess is that the difference would increase over time wearing them.
Once again thank you for everything!
Hi Bertel
Thanks for that. Good to know that a Burton 8 fits best in a small Burton binding versus a medium.
Yeah last year’s Malavita is identical to this year’s as far as I know, apart from the colorways.
Once they start breaking in that flexion will become easier in any boot – but yeah if it started out easier in the Ion for you, then it’s likely that it would be better for that dorsiflexion in the long run too. Note as well that you can speed up the break in process with heat molding the liner. It’s not going to make the boot feel fully broken in the first day you ride it or anything, but it will mean you’ll get to that point quicker. That said, if you can I would try on some other brands before committing as they might feel better. If the Ion was really tight around your ankle there’s a good chance that with heat molding and after riding for a while that would come right, especially if it was just tightness and no specific pressure points in any one place on your ankle. But no guarantees and ideally you would want to try a few different brands to see which fits best, if you can.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the information provided, it really is a deep rabbit hole to fall into haha. As most people on here I am currently looking to buy a new setup.
Riding style: I would say mostly All-Mountain with some free riding (so fast grooming, tree runs, side hits), not a lot of buttering and park
Me: 5’11”, 155 lbs
Narrowed it down to the Capita Mercury 155 and the YES. Standard 153, which both seem great and I can probably get them for similar money. Given your reviews here I assume you would agree that either one should fit my needs, right?
I am struggling a bit more with selecting bindings, current favorites are Union Atlas, Falcor or Strata – leaning a bit towards the Strata since they are quite a bit cheaper, but I don’t know if they are a bit too soft for my riding style (or if I would even notice), so any help would be appreciated!
Cheers
Hi Jona
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, both would certainly be suitable for what you’re describing. I would personally be leaning a little to the Standard, mainly because I prefer it in the trees – at least in the trees when there’s no fresh snow.
Size-wise those are probably suitable, but if you could let me know your boot size to confirm.
In terms of bindings, the Strata are a flex match for both boards, IMO, but the Atlas/Falcor probably a better match for the Mercury in particular. Given your style, I’d say probably Atlas or Falcor just to drive the board a little harder than the Strata can. But that said, the Strata would work well with both boards.
Hope this helps
Great, thanks for the fast reply! Boot size is US9/9.5.
I am leaning Standard + Falcor – read reviews from a couple of people praising the good on-board feel of the Falcor and it seems to be right in between the Strata and Atlas in terms of stiffness, so that should be perfect.
Hi Jona
For the Standard I think the 153 would be just right. If you did go Mercury, then 155 would be best too, IMO.
The Standard/Falcor would be a really good combo, IMO. And yeah Falcor really good board feel. A couple of things to note:
1. I felt the Falcor a little stiffer than the Atlas. I felt the Atlas at 7/10, Strata at 6/10 and Falcor at 7.5/10. But Falcor and Atlas very close. Atlas not as stiff as rated, IMO.
2. The Standard has “slam back inserts” which is an extra set of holes just behind the main insert pack. They’re 4cm back from the insert pack, which means unfortunately you wouldn’t be able to use those holes with the Falcor. If you don’t think you’d use those holes (main purpose is so you can setback further if you want to move your bindings back on a powder day for extra float), then it’s no issue, but if you think you’d use them, then unfortunately the mini-disc won’t do it. Same goes for the Strata, which also uses a mini-disc. The Atlas uses Union’s Universal Disc, which will work on those slam backs.
Thanks again, really appreciate it! Standard + Falcor/Atlas it is and then I will just decide based on what kind of deal I get.
You’re very welcome Jona. Hope you’re new setup treats you well and you have an awesome season!
Hello!
Do you know is there any difference using union bindings with mini discs or normal discs?
Witch Union binding do you feel will work good for allmountain riding for the standard board?
Hi Marko
Thanks for your message.
Union bindings that use the mini-disc tend to have better board feel. There’s less dead spot under your foot, so you can feel the flex of the board more easily. Some really like this, myself included, and typically if you’re doing more freestyle stuff it’s a feeling you’ll like. If you don’t really ride much freestyle and want a more solid connection with the board, then using one of their universal disc bindings is a good idea. The best matches to the Standard with a mini-disc are the Strata and Falcor, which one would work better for you would depend on your riding style. If you went with a universal disc option, then the Force or the Atlas would be your best bets, IMO.
The one thing to keep in mind when it comes to the Standard is that the Standard has an extra set of inserts behind the main insert packs (which they call slambacks). These allow you to increase your setback. However, with the mini-disc you can’t use these slambacks – as the disc isn’t wide enough to straddle between the main insert pack and the slamback inserts. If you think you’d make use of the slambacks on the Standard, then you’d need to go with a universal disc binding.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot! Very good advice! Helped 🙏🏻
You’re very welcome Marko. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I have been looking for a new board for this season and have been debating between the Nitro Team Gullwing, YES Standard and the Jones Mountain Twin. All these boards seem like a perfect fit for my style of riding where I like to try out everything the mountain has to offer. What would you say the differences are between the 3 and what would you recommend (I’m guessing you would say the Standard since it is your top choice)?
My main question here is if I were to get the Standard what size would I get as a 5’6 145lb rider with 9.5 size boots? The two boards I have were 150 and was wondering if that is the right size for me.
Thank You so much for this page. So much information in such a nice concise format. I love reading every review even when I’m not looking for a board.
Hi Terron
Thanks for your message.
Definitely not a wrong choice between them, so it could come down to sizing.
Some differences to consider:
– The Team Gullwing is just a little looser in feel vs the other 2. But it’s very subtly so, it’s nothing super loose or anything.
– The Standard has the best icy edge-hold of the 3, IMO, but the other 2 are still good in hard/icy conditions
– They’re all very similar in terms of flex and in terms of powder performance and carving and turning
– Also quite similar in terms of jumps and butters, jibbing etc.
– The Standard a little better for riding switch, but with something like the Mountain Twin you could center it up and it would be almost as good – probably not a difference you’d necessarily even notice, if you centered it up
So yeah, more similar than they are different.
Size-wise, I would put your “all-mountain length” at around 152cm.
The Standard is a little wider than you’d think based on waist width, but I think the 151 would still work size-wise, though the 149 would be a possibility as well. Between those 2 sizes, it would depend if you wanted to get a little more in terms of float in powder and stability at speed (go 151) or a little more maneuverability and ease of buttering, jibbing etc (go 149).
For the Mountain Twin, the 151 would be your best bet, IMO.
For the Team Gullwing, the 152. Even though it’s not that much narrower at the waist, it’s narrower at the inserts than either the 149 (or 151) Standard or 151 Mountain Twin. It should still be wide enough, but that’s the only borderline too narrow option, IMO. If you’re riding with like +15/-15 binding angles or similar and.or low profile boots, you shouldn’t have any issues. But if you had bulky boots and a flat back binding angle, then it could be pushing it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great work you do with this website. Such a wealth of information.
I’m quite conviced that I want to buy the YES standard as my next board (despite the fsct that thegoodride’s review isn’t very positieve, everyone else seems to like the board a lot. Just want to check in sizing with you. I’m 189cm tall (6″2 I believe) and 80kg. Boot size EU 43 (US10). Which size board would go well with this? I have a 162 now but wonder if I could step it down one size to make it a bit more playfull.
In addition, I do have burton imperiaal boots which are still in really good condition. Would they be alright to use with this board? And any advice on which bindings would go well with this combination?
Thanks in advance.
Niels
Hi Niels
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be your best bet. I would put you at around a 161 as your “standard length”, so at 162 with a regular width board, I think is probably a good size for you with your current board, but for the Standard I would size down. The 162 in the Standard would be too big, IMO. The 159 will still be wide for your boot size so sizing down to the 159 is your best bet, IMO.
The Imperials should match well with the Standard, IMO.
In terms of bindings, I would look at something around 6/10 to 7/10 flex. Something from one of the following is a good place to start.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks Nate! I guess the binding will be the union strata then.
One question about the union strata if you don’t mind. I can pick up a pair for €200,- which seems a good price. I think this is the 2022 model (it has a lot of small holes in the high back). Would you buy this one in favour of the 2023 model (€250)? I think I read in your review that they downgraded the hardware on these bindings a bit to make them more affordable. So, that would make the 2022 model better AND cheaper in this case won’t it?
Hi Niels
Yeah, if you can get the 2022 model for cheaper, I’d go with that, assuming they have the right size for you. The 2023 model wasn’t a big downgrade – the big price drop was mostly just where the Strata ended fitting in Union’s pricing Heirachy, but all the same, if you can get the better hardware on the 2022 model and it’s the same price or cheaper, then well worth doing.
Thanks Nate. Can’t wait to go try this setup out 🙂
You’re very welcome Niels. Hope your new setup treats you well and that you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate!! Thanks again for all your extensive research. After spending several hours on your site I have decided to go with the Yes. Standard, purchased from evo.com if course, for my next board.
I’m 5’9″ 145 lbs and wear a size 10 vans verse boot which seems to run on the smaller side considering all of my shoes are size 9.5.
I can’t decide between the 151 or 154. I mostly do very technical tree runs and steep chutes. I’m worried about toe overhang on the 151 but also concerned that being on the low end of the weight limit of the 154 will make the board more sluggish and difficult to turn in tight tree runs.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call between the 153 and 151 for you. The 151 might be wide enough though. It’s wider at the inserts than the waist width suggests. With around a 21″ stance, you’d be looking at around a 260mm width at inserts. With a 22″ stance, it would be more like 263mm. Which is a range that’s typically good for 10s, IMO, but can be borderline depending on binding angles and profile of boots. The Vans Verse’s that I’ve measured have been around 3cm longer than mondo on the outersole (so 31cm for a 10). So you would be looking at a 5cm total overhang (or 2.5cm (1″) per edge, assuming perfect boot centering) with a 0 degree back binding angle (assuming a 21″ stance width – with a wider stance, there would be less overhang). This is doable for a lot of riders, but if you’re laying down bigger carves, it’s pushing it. I’ve had no problems with deeper carves (I’m not eurocarving or anything though) with this kind of width, but I typically run +15/-15 binding angles and that angle does make quite a bit of difference. So depending on binding angles and how deep you carve, the 151 could be doable width-wise.
The 153 shouldn’t be overly big for you though. For your specs, I would typically put you at a around a 153/154, so it’s right there. Whilst you could argue it’s on the slightly wide side for your feet, it’s not super wide, so overall, I think it’s a size that shouldn’t feel too big. If you want that extra maneuverability the 151 would give a bit more in that sense, but it’s up to whether you think it’s too risky boot drag-wise.
Hey:) I have a Standard in the 151, 135lbs size 9.5 boot. Got a great deal on some 2018 Malavitas although I’ve heard those are a bit too soft maybe for this board. Getting new boots and Do you think K2 Ender’s with the Malavitas for this board would be a good match? I ride PNW mix of heavy snow, groomers, and deep powder.. Bombing groomers, side hits a plenty, trees, carving like a maniac:) Thanks.. your reviews are always great!
Hi Spaceship
Thanks for your message.
I think the Malavita work fine with the Standard. Maybe marginally softer than ideal, but still a match, IMO. The Ender are a good flex match, IMO, to that setup and should work for your style of riding too. You could also go a little stiffer, if you wanted to, but they should work well. I would say a boot with a 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be your best bet. The Ender, to me, is a 6/10 flex.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, what size Standard do you recommend for 6’2” 200 lbs rider? I wear 10.5 Burton Photon boots. I was thinking about the 159 considering I spend most of my time on piste. Thanks
Greg
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message. I agree that 159 would be your best bet. I’d say your “normal” all-mountain size would be more like 162, but with the width of the Standard being wider than normal for 10.5s, sizing down to the 159 makes the most sense.
Thanks Nate. Could I get away with the 162? Just curious. Thanks
Greg
Ps: love your site. Lots of great information! Keep it up!
Hi Greg
Yeah, I think you could get away with it. But note that it would likely differ a little vs how I felt the 156 Standard. Most likely it would feel a little stiffer than I felt the 156, be a little more stable at speed, a little less maneuverable, float a little better in powder, be a little harder to butter and a bit more effort to pop and spin.
Hi Nate,
I am looking to get a my first snowboarding gear and thanks to your reviews along with other sources, I am set on getting the 2023 Yes Standard as a do-it-all snowboard that’ll last me as long as it possibly can.
I am currently 60kg, 5’9, US8. Would probably put myself on the low end of the intermediate range – I can make turns but still struggle a bit on worn out steeper sections of the trail where there are combinations of ice and powder. I see myself mainly carving on groomers mainly but with the occasional jumps or jibbing.
I am wondering which board size you’d recommend for my case? Based on the specs, I believe either the 149 for 151 would be great for me but I can only get the 151 locally where I live – would that be much of an issue if I did went with the 151? or would you recommend another type of board for my case?
Also, with regards to the bindings, I’m stuck between the Union Strata and the Burton Cartel. Which of the two would you recommend? or perhaps another type of binding?
Many thanks!
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
I think the 149 would be your best bet. I would put your “standard size” at around 151, but with US8 boots, the 151 is a little on the wide side. The 149 would be a great size for you for the Standard, IMO. But the 151 is getting into the just a little too big territory. It would be doable, but not as optimal as the 149, IMO.
If you can’t find the Standard 149, I would also look into the Slash Brainstorm 151 or the Jones Mountain Twin 151. Even though they have similar waist widths to the 151 Standard, they’re not as wide at the inserts. You could also look at the 149 YES Typo. But again, the 151 Standard is doable – it’s not way out of range or anything, just the 149 would be more ideal.
Both the Strata and Cartel would be good matches for any of those boards, IMO and there’s not really a bad choice between them. I would personally go with the Strata. I prefer them a little more. But they’re both really good bindings and both a good match for the boards you’re looking at. Only thing I would caution is that the Strata has quite a long baseplate and the Medium could be a little long for those boards widths. Hard to say for sure without setting them up and you’d probably be OK, but there is some risk there. You may fit in the Small Strata if you have low profile boots, but no guarantees there either. So, based on that the Cartel would be the safer bet. It will fit fine in the Medium and you can probably go either medium or small with 8s. If you have bulkier than normal boots, then I would go Medium with the Cartels.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I just bought a yes standard 153. Do you have any recommendations for what bindings to pair with this board? I ride a lot of park and when i´m not in the park I like to ride the whole mountain as a park kind of. I have a pair of union stratas, but I would like to buy another pair of bindings to use with this board since the minidisc on the stratas dosen´t give much room for stance adjustment, plus I cant use the slam back inserts on pow days. I really like the feeling of the stratas and the simplicity of most union bindings. So i´m thinking either union force or burton Malavita but Im open to other suggestions as well. How similar is the force to strata? Malavita seems nice but I have read on a few forums & reviews that they tend to dent the topsheet of the board sometimes. Have you ever had that problem with your malavitas?
Im 174cm tall 67kg and ride US 8.5 burton Ion boots
Thanks a lot for your help!
Cheers
Hi Mika
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Force are quite different to the Strata. They have a more smooth, even feel to their response versus the Strata, which is a more “explosive/springy” kind of response. Also the board feel of the Force isn’t as good. I would go Malavita in your case, given that you ride a lot of park and ride the mountain like a park. I think you’ll appreciate the better board feel of the Malavita over the Force.
I haven’t had any issues with denting the top sheet with my malavitas. Leaves some marks when you take them off – but all bindings do that in my experience, but no denting that I’ve experienced.
Hope this helps
Hello! I am looking into getting this board and was hoping to get some help with sizing. I am 5’11” and weigh 160 pounds with a shoe size of 11. I am an intermediate rider who has gone snowboarding a decent amount but who has never owned a board before. I mostly stick to groomers but have an interest in doing some tree and park runs. Do you think I should go with the 156 or the 159? I can’t tell if the 156 will be too narrow for my feet.
Hey Mitch
I’d go 156 for sure. 159 in this board too big for you, IMO. And the 156 shouldn’t be too narrow for 11s. The width at the inserts is around 272mm (assuming a roughly 22″ stance width) which is a really good width for 11s, IMO. I mean, if you’re euro carving with bulky boots and zero angle on your back binding or the likes, then it might be too narrow, but otherwise, all good. I think the 156 would be the perfect size for your specs.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much for the response Nate! Thats really helpful. Love your website by the way!
Hey Nate, sorry for the double message. Wanted to actually ask 1 more question. Do you have any suggestions for boots and bindings for this board? I read through your guides but theres a lot of options so wasnt sure if you could help narrow it down.
Hey Mitch
For boots, I would look for something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range. I know that doesn’t narrow it down a whole bunch, but the best fitting option in that flex range would be the way I’d go. If you’re unable to try on for fit, this might be some help.
For bindings, something in the same 6/10 to 7/10 flex range. Look out for things like board feel if you think you want to be trying butters, ollies, jibs etc. Good shock absorption also helps if you’re going to be doing jumps and can help with chatter in more bumpy terrain. The following have really good options for the Standard, IMO. Though I would personally try to not go to 5/10 flex, if you can help (there’s a couple in the first list below that are 5/10 flex.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all your time and energy in writing all these reviews. I could use your expertise in helping me find my next board and I’m considering the Yes Standard. I have been riding a very stiff Ride No.4, fast and aggressively for the last 15 years. I’m looking for a fun daily driver that can be just as fun, just as grippy on groomers or icy snow, but that is also less forgiving than my current stiff board. I’m also at a point where I want to goof around a little, buttering from time to time. I demoed a Lib tech Ejack knife last season and loved it. It was just what I was looking for except that it didn’t have a ton of pop in the park and was slightly on the stiffer end. The Yes Standard seems a bit less stiff. Not having the opportunity to ride, and seeing that you rode and reviewed both of those, which one would you recommend for a daily driver, groomer, ice, some park, some butters, some pow?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Pablo
Thanks for your message. The Standard is certainly a little softer than the Ejack Knife and more suited to park and butters. Not quite as good for powder, but still OK for powder. And not quite as stable at speed or as good on a carve, but still decent in those areas. The Standard, in my experience has really good edge hold in icy conditions, so you would still get that aspect. So I think it could definitely work for you. Another option, given that you liked the Ejack Knife would be to look at something like the Lib Tech TRS (though the biggest weakness there would be in powder) or the GNU RC C3 (again powder being the biggest issue there). But I think the Standard would work well for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Hi ante I got this beauty ,153 (finally) along with a pair of atlas, I’m a hit concerned since I also have a pair of stratas I am not sure with one of them would ahit better.
Regards
Hi IJ
Both the Strata and Atlas would pair with the Standard. If you have an Aviator (looking at your comment from the Aviator post) and the Standard, then I would put the Atlas on the Aviator and the Strata on the Standard.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
You recently offered me some advice on the Yes Typo review where you recommended a 158 size for my 74kg and size 9(UK), 10(US) shoe size.
I’m a low-end intermediate who rides groomers and maybe some powder. No park rides for me.
I’m struggling to find a Typo in the UK, end of season and stock is nill, and Yes, don’t ship directly to the UK.
I can still find a few Yes Standards, but I’m struggling to work out the correct board size for the Standard. Is it 156 or maybe even 153 because of my 74kg weight?
Is the Standard suitable for my level and riding preference? I think it is from reading your excellent review.
Thanks for your help; greatly appreciated.
Hi Spike
The Standard is certainly a step up from the Typo and I would say solid intermediate would be best. It’s doable for low intermediate, but will likely be a little more of a challenge to begin with.
Size-wise, those are the 2 sizes I would be debating between. Because of it’s width, I would certainly go a little smaller than what you would ride the Typo in. And as a low intermediate erring on the shorter side is also advisable. Given that you’re not looking to do any freestyle, I think the 156 is the more pure size for your specs – and it’s still sizing down a bit from what I would consider your “standard all-mountain” size. But as a lower intermediate rider, there is an argument to size down a little more again to the 153.
It’s a tough call. The 156 is a size that would serve you for as long as the board lasted, IMO. The 153 might be something you’d want to upgrade from, when you get to an advanced level of riding.
Some other things that might help with the decision:
– The 156 will give you better stability at speed, be faster in general, and better float in powder
– The 153 will be a little easier to ride, be more maneuverable at slower speeds and better/easier for freestyle stuff (but that’s not a concern from what I understand).
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate — as every thank you for the prompt and quality advice.
It really is an excellent service you provide. Your reviews are very well written and structured, so a big thank you to you.
I’ll go and see what Standards I can find …. otherwise I’ll have to wait for the new season stock to come in.
Thanks again for your help.
Back again 🙂
I was just reading your 1-8+ levels for snowboarding skills …. I would say I’ve completed 5 but not started 6 yet.
Would that still mean that the Standard could be a bit challenging?
Thanks
Hi Spike
If you’re around a level 5, I don’t think you should have any issues riding the Standard.
Hi, looking at buying a standard. Intermediate level. I am 5″7 and weight 140lbs with a size 8.5 salomon launch boa boot. Would you recommend 153 or 151? I believe both will work but which one would be better?
Hi Bobby
I think your the same Bobby I just answered, but yeah, I would be weighing up between the 151 and 149, and think the 153 would be a bit too big. Given that you’re thinking between 151 and 153, I think the 151 is your best bet.
Hi, I am about 172cm 5”7 weight 140lbs with boot size 8.5 Salomon launch boa. I’m looking at the standard yes 153cm . Do you think it will fit ? I’m an intermediate rider who will mostly do regular slopes and not snow park
Hi Bobby
Thanks for your message.
The 153, IMO, is a bit too big for your specs. I would put your “standard all-mountain” size at around 152, but with this board being wide for your boots, I would size down from that. So I would go 151 for the Standard at the longest, and would seriously consider the 149, but the 153 is bigger than ideal, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’ve been rocking the YES Standard for 2-3 seasons now and I bought it to grow into after Burton’s Clash. Although I’ve gained lots of experience and advanced as a rider, I occasionally feel that the Standard feels too stiff or not playful enough. When thinking about a second, more playful and easy going board, what would you recommend to “downshift” into?
I was thinking about the Basic/Typo models but not sure if they would be too similar, any other options are more than welcome as well.
Thank you!
Hi Tuomas
Thanks for your message.
The Basic/Typo are quite different feeling boards, so I wouldn’t say they would be too similar – and both certainly more mellow than the Standard. If you adding the new board to pair with the Standard in a quiver, I would go Basic over Typo, to give you that bigger difference (Basic is softer flexing and more rocker and just more playful overall). If you wanted to go full freestyle with your second board, then I would also look at:
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
Every board there will be more playful than the Standard, IMO. The one that I probably wouldn’t go for is the Jackpot – just because it’s not going to feel a lot more playful. It’s certainly still a different feeling board to the Standard, but in terms of playfulness it’s not going to be that noticeable a difference, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot Nate, I appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Tuomas. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Like almost everyone who leaves a comment here I have to start by saying how much I appreciate the in depth reviews, but also the detailed and personalized responses to each comment.
To start I am 31, 6’3, and float between 185 – 195 lbs with a size 11-11.5 boot. I have a more slender foot and the 11.5 fits my toe a little better usually, but I like the hug of the 11s around my foot. I currently rock Burton Photons in an 11 and had them heat molded to push the toe back a little bit. I would say I am in between intermediate and advanced, with some aspects of my riding being advanced and other still needing to be progressed. I boarded a lot as a teenager and in my 20s I would only go like once or twice a season, but in the last few years have been getting up there as much as possible. I am definitely an all mountain style rider with a lean towards freestyle. I LOVE to hit kickers and on a confident day can pretty much take down any jump on the mountain, and I love to charge hard once or twice a day. I am not a big jibber but hit some easy rails / boxes, but am really trying to work on my switch riding, buttering, carving, and getting more comfy on the smaller park features.
I never really took the time to try and master switch riding until this season and I have started to really enjoy the feeling that comes with total mastery of the board. I am still progressing switch but looking forward to improving my butter tricks / edge control on carves. So, I want a board that can handle the occasional charge and larger features, but I also want something suitable to progressing the switch / butter aspects of my riding that are lacking.
When I started getting serious about the sport again I just went and got a Burton Custom with some light research and it seemed like a good all mountain quiver of one, but after being on it for my second season it doesn’t seem like the fit for me. It’s a 162 and it can really charge down the mountain, rip a carve, and great for landing the big jumps (even saves my knees a bit when I overshoot haha), but it feels labored when I am trying to play around / progress buttering at slow speeds. It is also just a bit unforgiving, I love the launch out of turns, but I feel like I am always having to be on my game (especially switch). I also see a lot of hard snow / icy conditions being in California and only 1 or 2 light powder days a year.
So, I am going to get a new set up at the end of the season and after reading your reviews and a ton of research I landed on the Standard. I am thinking of going with the 156 to have some playfulness, and was hoping the mid-wide flex could still handle the occasional bomb and big feature I throw at it. I wanted to see if you thought that was accurate or if I should go with the 159.
For Bindings I am leaning towards the Strata, the Rome Vice, and the NOW select Pro. I like my Burtons, but I am not a fan of the toe straps, I just can’t seem to get them to lock in how I would like. I am definitely leaning towards the Strata, but I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the set back inserts the Standard has. I don’t see many powder days in California though and was thinking I could always rent when I do. I know you don’t review rome or NOW, but I was wondering if you heard people liking the skate tech or thought they could be a good fit just hearing about preferences.
Thanks for reading such a long comment and I appreciate all the effort you put in!
Take care,
Justin
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would suit what you’re describing well. It’s a bit mellowed out from the Custom for sure, but can still handle some speed. It’s easier to butter too.
Size-wise, I think I would be leaning 159 though. For your specs, I would say something around 162 is your “standard all-mountain” length, but given the aspects you want to focus on, sizing down is certainly an option and with the Standard being a wider board, it makes sense for that reason as well. However, I think sizing down to 159 would be enough. If you wanted it to really be something for focusing on freestyle, the you could certainly ride the 156, but with 11s, the 156 would be a good width for you – rather than being on the wider side. The 159 is on the wider side for 11s, but it’s still in a good range for the 11s. If you were riding 9.5s, 10s that kind of thing, I would give more consideration to the 156, but with 11s, and your height/weight specs, I would be leaning 159.
For reference in terms of width at inserts, on the Custom 162, you probably, depending on your stance width have a width at the inserts of around 267mm. On the Standard 156, it would be around 270mm. On the 159 Standard around 275mm.
For bindings, if you weren’t concerned about not being able to use the slam backs, then I think the Strata would work well. You could still set it back on the regular insert pack, but just not as far back as you can with the slam backs. I haven’t tested the NOW Select, but I have tested a few NOW bindings – for the most part I like them – but I’m not a fan of how their board feel for the likes of butters etc – and given that’s something you want to work on, that would be my only concern with NOW bindings. I haven’t to date tested any Rome bindings.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I appreciate all of the advice, and I actually like the idea of a 159 as well I think I just got a bit weary of the larger size because the core on the 162 Custom felt way heavier then the 158 and stiffer. It almost felt twice as heavy when I picked up someone elses 158 after I got it, and I just want to be sure these sizes don’t have the same jump in heftiness. If that’s not the case then I am definitely open to the 159.
Yeah I was worried about that with the NOW’s so I will probably steer clear, thanks!
I thought I would also add, I have also been re-examining the Yes Greats, and thinking it could be really good for learning some of the things I had just mentioned. When I went back and looked it seemed you mentioned it could handle some speed as well (maybe even 4/5), and I was wondering if you thought that could potentially be a good fit too, and if so what size? 159 as well?
Thanks again Nate!
Also, I saw you ride Falcors on your Greats board and was wondering why you prefer those because they are a bit stiffer – and if you had any other bindings you would recommend.
This is a little random as well, but I was looking at the Goliath and Whatever at first but wrote them off because they seemed to have trouble in hard snow, which I ride most often, but I saw you rode one in a comment and was wondering if you would agree.
Appreciate the time.
Shoot I am the worst, I forgot to mention I wanted the binding recommendations with a slightly canted footbed around 1.5, I think it would help my knees a bit with my wider stance!
Hey Nate,
Sorry to blow you up with comments! You can delete this comment and the Bataleon one as well. I have decided to go with the Yes Greats! It just feels like the exact balance I want with a great switch experience, but I a super stuck between the 156 and 159. I am just worried I will find the 159 has a similar jump in heftiness from the 156 that I experience on the custom from 158 to 162. I can’t find any local ones to play around with either, let me know what ya think!
Appreciate it,
Justin
Hi Justin
Thanks for your messages.
I think the Greats would fit what you’re describing really well. Just note that it’s not as good in powder as the Standard – but it’s not any worse in powder than the Custom. Though if you do end up going 156 in the Greats, then it won’t float in well as powder as the 162 Custom, IMO. But if powder isn’t that important or if you don’t see any deep powder that much, then I think it should work really well.
In terms of sizing – when it comes to the Greats, the 156 is more doable than the Standard 156 for you, IMO. Like the Standard it’s wider, as you know but it’s also got a lot more effective edge versus overall length vs the Standard. Again it’s not super wide since you ride 11s, but I would still size down to 159 even without taking the effective edge into account. When taking the effective edge into account you can ride this board in a shorter size than the Standard if you want to.
I rode the 154 most recently on this board, and it didn’t feel too small at all. It’s a size I could happily ride on this board (I wouldn’t suggest you go as small as the 154 though, with your boot size). I own the 156 and I really like that size too, but I would never go 159 personally – would feel too big for me. I think you could, with your specs, ride the 159, but the 156 is definitely doable – and it seems you’re liking that idea. You would get a little less stability at speed – and certainly versus the Custom 162, there would be a drop there – but I don’t think it would end up being too wobbly or anything.
I ride the Falcor’s on my Greats – it’s a combo I like. I really like carving with the Greats 156. But I do like it with my Malalvita’s too – it doesn’t need stiffer bindings. And if were to ride the 154 I would likely ride it with softer bindings. Also note that my Falcor’s are the 2019 model. The 2022 model got a bit stiffer than previous models, so I’m not sure I would put them on the Greats. If it was between the 2022 Falcor and the Strata, I would go Strata.
I appreciate all the added help! I think I am leaning towards the 156 and I will keep you updated on how it goes!
You’re very welcome Justin. Look forward to hearing how it goes for you.
The fact I had to scroll this far to comment speaks for itself. You’re a cool dude.
I’m currently on my first board a 2009 Riders choice 157.5 which I have been riding for 4 years and it’s time for something new. I guess I’m intermediate now. I was originally set on just getting the new Riders choice but your review on the Standard is starting to change my mind. It seems to check all the boxes so now I’m confused haha. I love trees and small natural hits so I need nimble. It has been difficult to enjoy the pow on my current setup as I start cramping from needing to lean back so much, so something with more float would be nice. I’m not too concerned about speed but I’m looking forward to more stability and better turning. No park for me. Mostly off piste when I can so free ride?
I’m 6 ft 185-190 lbs with 11.5 boots. I was settling on the Standard 159 but I’ve seen you recommend some people size down to the 156. I’m 32 years old and consider myself fairly strong and athletic haha. Not sure if that helps. Or do I stick with riders choice and get the 158W?
Hi Devon
Thanks for your message.
If you went Standard I would actually go 159 in your case. With the same specs and size 10 boots, then yeah, sizing down to 156 would be an option for sure, and I’d be leaning that way for this board. But with 11.5 boots, the 159 is a good width for your boots, so no need to size down (I typically only recommend sizing down with this board for smaller boot sizes).
The Standard, IMO, will give you more on a carve, better stability at speed and be a little better in powder – particularly if you make use of the slam back inserts. In terms of nimbleness, comparing the 159 Standard to 158W RC, I’d say the RC is probably a little more agile, but not heaps in it. Given your riding style, if you wanted to go with something a little more directional twin, then you could also look at the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, if you wanted something similar to the RC, but a little better in powder (though you’d have to size up to the 161W or down to 156W). But I think the Standard fits what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Helpful? Yes and no! Haha. Thanks for replying but now I’m intrigued by the TW. There are too many options. So yea I live for the trees. Unfortunately good powder days are far in between where I live. I’m still leaning toward the standard as you’ve suggested even though I don’t think I’d really utilize the slam back much. It would just be nice to have that option on those rare occasions. I’m hoping any wider modern hybrid board will be better than what I have now, and since I don’t have much experience with other boards I wonder if I’ll notice the subtleties. So with that would you say just get the standard and don’t worry about it, or would you say maybe the TW would be better if it is indeed more nimble, playful, snappy? I also noticed they have different bases does that play much of a factor? Size up or down the TW? And you know it may also just come down to whatever I can get my hands on as stock seems to be diminishing…
Hi Devon
Yeah, I would say TW more nimble and playful, but the Standard certainly isn’t unnimble or unplayful. I don’t think there’s a wrong choice. But the Standard will be more of a different feeling to what you’re used to, given you’re used to riding a 2009 Rider’s Choice. Especially given that back then it was BTX – so basically all rocker – or at least pretty rocker dominant. The new Rider’s Choice is C2X, which has more camber in it than the BTX – and the TW is also C2X. But they still have the rocker between the feet – and having that pivot point between the feet, compared to camber between the feet can be quite a different feeling. Of course that’s not the only difference between them, but it’s definitely a noticeable difference and one that can take a bit of getting used to.
With the TW, my instinct is that you’re going to find the 161W a little too big, particularly because trees are a big part of your riding. So, I would be more inclined to go the 156W – though that feels a little on the small side! But if you’re coming from a 157.5 RC – regular width – then size-wise the 156W is probably actually a slightly bigger feel than that. In terms of surface area, it’s still going to give you a little more, which is good for powder – and being a little more directional than the RC, it’s going to be better for powder in that sense as well. But going 156W smaller will lessen how much better it feels in powder – but I feel like it would be the better balance between keeping things nimble, whilst also giving a bit better powder performance
Almost forgot to tell you I went ahead and sent it and snagged a standard 159. It seemed like I was weirdly in between on the sizing for the TW, plus they’re hard to find in stock. It might take some adjustment going to more of a camber board but I’m excited for the challenge. Just need some more snow this season! Thanks for taking the time to give in depth and thoughtful advice. If you’re interested maybe I’ll share my thoughts when I finally get to ride it.
Hi Devon
Nice! Hope it treats you well. Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.