Hello and welcome to my YES Standard snowboard review
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
Price: $499 (USD recommended retail)
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10 on YES’s flex scale)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 92.0/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 41 men’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
- The average score was 82.3/100
- The highest score was 92.0/100
- The lowest score was 66.7/100
- The average price was $507 (USD)
- The Standard ranked 1st out of 41!
Overview of the Standard’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Standard’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All Mountain |
Price: | $499 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Camber (3-4-3 Rocker-Camber-Rocker) |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Centered (with slam back stance option) |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Normal |
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 the board for anyone that likes to do a bit of everything but only wants one board to do it all on and not have the hassle of switching boards depending on the situation.
So, if you want to be able to ride the powder, ride the park and ride groomers and ride them in any style that you like, then the Standard is worth checking out.
Not ideally suited for a beginner (but not the worst either) but great for anyone who is intermediate or up.
The Standard in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Standard is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Standard 2019, 156cm (258mm waist)
Date: March 15, 2018
Conditions: Icy in a lot of places, especially first thing but even first thing there were some softer patches. Icy patches decreased and soft patches increased as the day went on. Sunny as! Clear blue skies. So, goes without saying 100% vis.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 545mm (21.5“)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 270mm (10.6“)
Weight: 2880grams (6lb 5.6oz)
Weight per cm: 18.46grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.21grams/cm* (so it’s really close to average)
*based on a small sample size of 24 boards that I weighed.
Given the width of the board, it’s quite light for per cm.
Powder
Even when centered, this board rides the powder well. This is mostly based on the 2018 model, when I had more powder to test in.
If you were to set it back (and it has some extra “slam back” inserts where you can setup with a decent setback if you want) it would be even better. But I was too lazy to do it, even though I had plenty of fresh powder to play with. The reason? It was good enough in powder when it was centered so I didn’t feel the need.
Now, I was also demoing for other characteristics and I wanted to test it in it’s normal stance, which is centered, but if you had a powder day you could slam it back and it would be worth it if you were going to be surfing the powder all day.
It has a good bit of rocker in tip and tail (so riding the pow switch is also fine) and it’s also has something that YES call a “directional volume twin” – which means it’s essentially a true twin except that the tail has a little less material in there (it’s the same width and length as the nose). You notice this in powder but not on groomers – so it’s essentially a true twin on groomers.
Carving & Turning
Even though there is plenty of rocker in the tip and tail of this board, it drives a carve nicely.
And for basic turns it’s nice and it’s quite forgiving. You can definitely get away with skidded turns and it’s not catchy at all.
Flex-wise YES rate this a 7/10 but I’d say more like 6/10.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Speed
This board can handle the speed and it feels stable even when bombing. It’s not going to be the speed demon that a freeride board is – but it’s certainly no slouch, especially for a twin.
Uneven Terrain
As with pretty much everything this board tries to do, it is good in uneven terrain. Between the 2018 and 2019 models I demoed the last couple of years, it could handle any terrain I threw at it well – something any good all-mountain should.
Jumps
This board is super fun on jumps and doing spins. It’s got that camber between the feet that really helps with pop and it’s got great stability for landings.
It’s got an even swing feel and with that centered stance feels really comfortable with spins.
And now that it has a lighter core (new for the 2019 model), it makes it even snappier and easier to pop and spin.
Switch
It’s basically a true twin and that shows when you’re riding switch. It wouldn’t be as comfortable riding switch in the slam back stance position but centered it’s a great board for riding and landing switch.
Jibbing/Buttering
Definitely doable – it’s not going to match it with freestyle or jib specialist boards or get close to them, but it can jib OK. It’s not something that frightened the daylights out of me when approaching jibs like some boards can (or make me skip the jib line altogether!)
Actually a really easy/nice board to butter. Easier than I expected with the flex that it has. It’s perhaps a little softer tip and tail than it is in the middle.
Pipe
Though I didn’t ride it in a pipe I think it would be a really good pipe board. It’s got enough stiffness, has good edge hold in hard snow and has a decent amount of camber between the feet to help drive between the walls. It’s also centered and virtually a true twin with a good swing feel.
Changes from the 2021 Model
The 2022 YES Standard, from what I can tell is the same as the 2021 model, bar the graphic.
Changes from the 2020 Model
The 2021 YES Standard, from what I can tell is the same as the 2020 model, bar the graphic.
Changes from the 2019 Model
The 2020 YES Standard, from what I can see is the same as the 2019 model. Only change is that there is the new size. It now comes in a 167.
Changes from the 2018 Model
The 2018 and 2019 are mostly the same. The one change is that the 2019 model has a lighter core. Otherwise it’s the same but this is a nice improvement. There were more major changes between the 2017 and 2018 models (see below).
Changes from the 2017 Model
There were a few changes between the 2017 & 2018 model.
Firstly, the sizings changed. There are no longer any wide sizes but the regular sizes are wider.
It now comes in a 149, 151, 153, 156 and 159. The 2017 model came in a 152, 154, 156, 158, 156W, 159W, 161W. But with that wider waist width, you can ride a shorter board if you want.
In terms of waist width the 156cm that I rode in the 2018 model had a 258mm waist width and the 2017 model 156cm had a 250mm waist width – so this increased quite a bit. The 159 now has a 263mm waist – which is wider than the 2017 159W, which had a 258mm waist.
The sidecuts and effective edges also changed for the 2018 model.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 12/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SWITCH | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPINS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
BUTTERS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
JIBBING | 3.0 | 3/5 |
PIPE | 4.0 | 4/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 92.0/100 |
The Standard is on the top of the list for me, as far as do-it-all, one-board-quiver boards out there go. As well as performing really well across all the categories I test for, it's also just got that X factor that's hard to describe.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in learning more about the Standard, are ready to buy or would like to check out current prices and availability, check out the links below.
- CANADA
If you want to see how the Standard compared to other all-mountain boards or want to check out some other options check out the next link.
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.
Finally got to test out the Standard, and it was awesome! Very happy with the upgrade. First thing I noticed was how light it was compared to my old board. My first camber board and no problem getting the hang of it, though this could just be a more forgiving board too. Less squirrely on the cat tracks, and much better take off and landings on jumps. It was a mixed day with firm ice base and fresh pow on top. The float was so nice. I do think the magnetraction is a little bit better in the ice, but the Standard did ok still. No problem riding switch on the groomers. Had a great time in the trees. I noticed I could get a little bit of snap out of turns which was new for me and fun. Overall amazing and no regrets. Thanks for the review and recommendation.
(also sorry I replied to an earlier post because there wasn’t a visible button on the latest one)
Hi Devon
Thanks for the update. Always great to hear other’s experiences and awesome that it’s treating you so well. Enjoy!
Hi Nate,
I’ve been riding a Lib Tech T. Rice 153 for the last 8-10 years and looking to switch over to one of your top ranked all-mountain boards. Other than the Standard, I’ve been looking at the Typo, Jones MT, and Ride Algorythm, but I’m having a ton of trouble figuring out which is the best fit for me.
I ride a lot of groomers out west but love to hop into the trees and am looking for something that’s easy to maneuver. I’m starting to do a little more park but more so just hit little features around the mountain and ideally would have something that can handle itself pretty well on pow days. Definitely want something stable at speed too but I’m not a crazy aggressive rider either. I feel like the MT is a great fit but I’ve read a ton of reviews about the top layer peeling off and it seems like it’s become a pretty consistent and major problem. Have you heard of experienced anything like that?
Other than that, any lean on any of these options? Thanks so much, really appreciate the help!
IP
Hey IP
Thanks for your message.
I got your other one on the Mountain Twin review as well, but will delete it to keep things tidy as I don’t think there was anything different to your comment here.
I haven’t had any issues with Jones boards topsheets peeling, but I only get them for so long. That said, sometimes I get them after they’ve been ridden a bit – demo models from reps and I haven’t noticed it. I don’t recall anyone mentioning to me either, but I get a lot of comments, so it’s possible someone mentioned it and I can’t remember, but off the top of my head, I haven’t heard of it, so I’m not sure how common it is with the MT. That aside, I think the MT would be a great option for what you’re describing. As would the Standard, so that’s definitely an option too.
I haven’t ridden the Algorythm yet, so I’m not sure about that one.
The Typo would certainly work for what you’re describing and, IMO would be the most manevuerable for the trees – but will be the least in terms of powder. Still OK in powder but not as good as the Standard or MT, IMO. It’s the most playful of the 3, IMO, so if you wanted to go more playful, it’s an option, but it’s not as stable at speed. So, my instinct says the MT and Standard probably better fits, but if you wanted the most maneuverable in trees and the most playful and were happy to sacrifice a little in terms of speed and powder, it’s definitely an option.
Happy to give sizing suggestions for each of those, if you wanted it – would just need your weight and boot size – got your height (5’7″) from your other comment already.
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks Nate (sorry about all the comments), super helpful! 5’7 150 which I’m guessing puts me on the Standard 153 and MT 154 probably right?
I’d say I’m in the trees more than I’m in powder just for being unlucky missing the good storms but definitely looking for decent in both. Am I missing any other top options outside of Standard, Typo, MT for my riding style?
Thanks again for the help!
Hi IP
Got all your messages (deleted the others for tidiness). They just need to be moderated, which I typically just do as I reply. A little slower replying right now because it’s the weekend – and also because I’m on the road doing a bit of ski resort tour.
I would say around 154 in terms of length for your specs, generally speaking as your “standard all-mountain” size. However, given that the Standard is a wider board, I’d look at the 151 – size down a bit to make up for the fact that it would be wide for your boots. As you mentioned in your other post, you picked up the 153 – it’s doable, but on the big side for your specs, IMO, I think the 151 would be the more optimal size.
For the MT, the same thing applies really. All be it not quite as wide as the Standard, it’s still wide for your boots (and the 154 only actually marginally narrower than the Standard at the inserts) – so again, I’d probably be leaning 151, rather than 154. Again, 154 doable, but I’d be leaning 151.
Yeah, the Typo is a little more playful/more freestyle focused board than the other 2, IMO, but it’s not like a park board or anything. It’s a little bit down in terms of powder, but it’s not terrible for powder either. I actually really liked it in the trees – really nice and nimble. Size-wise, I agree with 152 as you mentioned in your other comment, if you were to go with that one.
Thanks a lot, Nate. I ended up swapping out the 153 for the 151 Standard. I checked the SB Database and saw my Lib Tech is actually from 09 lol so I’m pretty excited to get on a new board. Really appreciate the help (and your article about how to figure out what width board is for you).
Best,
IP
You’re very welcome IP. Hope the 151 Standard treats you well! Happy riding
Hi Nate, (fellow Nate here)
Intermediate snowboarder here with 3-4 years experience. I am 5’9,” 175-180lbs, wearing size 9.5 Ride Rooks. I reside in Southern California and expect to ride in June and Mammoth a lot, with a trip planned to Steamboat Springs, CO and Big Sky, MT each. I primarily ride groomers, trees, and enjoy some speed. However I did want to spend more time in the park this year with jumps and rails and keep practicing switch. Big Bear is usually just groomers and park, but mammoth can see pretty good pow and last year steamboat and big sky blessed our trips with plenty.
Last Year I rode an old buddy’s Rome SDS LoFi 155cm. That a women’s board with a 149 waist width that definitely wasn’t meant to handle my weight so powder runs were pretty rough. There was toe drag, but it still carved decent, and I enjoyed the park on it none the less.
I actually just purchased the Yes Standard in 153cm, but am on the fence about exchanging for the 156. My concern with 153 is really about my weight for the board. When I put the Yes Standard 153 up against the old board, it’s (to my inexperienced mind) only a bit wider wider at the nose, tail, and waist. I know it’s unwise to compare the two, but I still worry about my weight on the board being to high for the 153 and just sinking miserably again in powder, but on the flipside I worry that I’ll lose responsiveness and turn initiation on the 156 due to my boot size and not navigate well through trees.
Sorry that was so long, let me know which size you think would be best.
Thank You
Hey Nate
Thanks for the message – and great name!
The Rome Lofi is relatively wide for a women’s board (and really the max length that women’s boards typically come in). So the Standard 153 at the waist isn’t that much wider (249mm on Lofi vs 253mm on Standard), but the overall width is quite a bit more (299mm at the nose/tail versus 293mm at nose and tail). It doesn’t sound (and doesn’t look) like much, but makes quite a big difference to the overall surface area of the board. And, importantly, at the inserts, the 153 Standard would be considerably more. Assuming a fairly moderate 545mm (21.5“) stance width, the 153 is around 265mm at the inserts. And a bit more if you were to have a wider stance width than that. As I’ve never measured a Rome board, I don’t what the Lofi is likely to be at the inserts, but I’d be surprised if it was more than 259mm. So, I’d be very surprised if you got boot drag issues on the 153.
All of that said, I think the 156 is the better size for you in the Standard. The 153 is doable – and it will give you better powder performance than the Lofi, IMO, but I would be leaning 156. I’d put your “standard all-mountain” size at around 159. However, given the width of the 156cm Standard (270mm at inserts assuming that 545mm (21.5″) stance width) is quite wide, sizing down a little makes sense, but I think sizing down to 156 makes more sense than to 153. I really like the 156 and ride either 9.5 or 10 boots (6’0″, 185lbs last time I rode it) – height is the least thing to worry about and your weight is similar – I’m typically between 175lbs and 185lbs and I’d still ride the 156 when I’m 175lbs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate thanks for the great reviews!
I’m trying to decide on a new board. I’m currently riding a 15 year old Burton Canyon in 168W.
I’ve been riding for 20+ years and would say I’m an advanced rider.
I’m 6’2″, 230lb, and US 13 Burton boots. Would the Standard in 162 work well for me?
Also considering the Jones Mountain Twin in 165W. Was also looking at the Lib Tech Travis Rice Pro in 164W or the Skunk Ape in 165W.
Would the Burton Cartels, Cartel X, or Union Atlas or Forces be a good choice for any of those boards? Using Burton Photon boots.
Thanks!
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard could work in the 162 for you. Possible you could see a reduced stability at speed, given the size drop, but I’m not sure what the Canyon was like. The Canyon was before my time testing boards, so I don’t know much about it – and can’t find much either, but what I could find, it sounds like it’s similar to the old Custom. Assuming that translates somewhat to the new custom, then size-for-size, you’re looking at a bit of a drop in terms of stability at speed. That said, it’s an older board and you can afford to size down more these days. Not taking your old board into account, I would say 162, for the Standard, is a good size for your specs.
For the other boards I agree with your sizings on those too. The Mountain Twin would be doable in the 162W, but with 13’s I think the width is a safer bet on the 165W – and length-wide, I’d be leaning that little bit longer too – especially given the board you’re coming from.
In terms of bindings, I would go either Cartel X or Atlas if you went T Rice Pro or Skunk Ape as the Cartel and Force would likely be a little soft for them. Any of those would match the Standard and Mountain Twin but I’d still be leaning Cartel X and Atlas.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome thanks for the reply. Yup the Canyon was the wide version of the Custom back in the day.
I think I’ll go with the Mountain Twin 165w with Cartel Xs. Just for that bit more stability at speed.
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Ben. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I’ve just purchased the YES Standard 2021 board thanks to your great reviews!
I’m now looking to get some bindings for the board and was looking at the NOW X-YES Men’s Snowboard Bindings 2020. I thought they would be compatible with the YES Standard board. I have seen some that were £250 but now half price now at £125, and don’t really want to pay much more than this for some bindings.
I was wondering if you know anything about the quality of these bindings and if they are decent. Also, maybe give me a few suggestions to look at that would be good for this board.
I am in between an intermediate and advanced level, and have a shoe size of 9/10. I bought the 156cm board.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Will
Hi Will
Thanks for your message.
The NOW X Yes are good quality bindings. My biggest thing with them and other NOW bindings is board feel, in terms of feeling the flex nose to tail for butters/presses and the likes, but otherwise, they’re good bindings. I think ideally I would go 6/10 or 7/10 in terms of flex for the Standard – I felt the X YES at 5/10 flex. So a little softer than ideal, but still doable for sure. For more on the X YES, you can check out my review of them here.
As bindings get stiffer they tend to get more expensive, so if you’re looking at that kind of price range, then they might be your best bet. But if you can find past season versions of others you should be able to get them cheaper than normal. Since those are 2 seasons old, they will be cheaper than if you were to find one season old, but anything that’s not current season should be discounted.
Some good options to look out for that are reasonably priced (and even better if you can find them in past season model) and would be a good match to the Standard are the Burton Cartel and Union Force.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the info Nate, I appreciate your advice and opinion! I’ll take a look at your suggestions
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review sounds like a great board. Right now I’m riding a 155 GNU Headspace, and while it is exceptional board I find that my riding style is a little too aggressive for it and am looking for something more stable at speed an uneven terrain etc as well as something with a bit more pop. I’m 5’10 150lb and wear 10.5 boots and was looking at the 156 Standard. Was between this and the Mercury but this sounds a little more stable and wider. But one thing that I really do like about the Headspace is the edge hold and how well it carves, so I was wondering how the Standard carves and if it’s more suited to longer drawn out carves out shorter carves etc.
Thanks!
Hi Ian
THanks for your message.
Versus the Headspace I’d say it’s a little more suited to long drawn out carves, but it’s still not one for super long drawn out carves, if that makes sense. I wouldn’t say it’s more stable than the Mercury. Similar though. The 156 would work for you. It’s on the big side for your specs, IMO, when you take into account length and width, but doable, particularly if you’re looking for it to be more stable at speed and more aggressive. Versus the 155 Headspace, it will be that for sure.
Hope this helps with your decision
Okay cool thanks for the info! Yeah now that I’m looking at the recommended rider weight specs for the Standard the 153 might be more suited for my weight. And yeah I feel you on the carving etc , just want to be sure it’s decent as I like something that isa well rounded board especially since I can’t demo it . Still a little on the fence between this and the Mercury haha but I know I can’t go wrong with either boards!
You’re very welcome Ian. Yeah both really nice boards, IMO, so not a bad choice between them. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with and how you get on, on snow. Happy riding!
For sure thanks Nate !
Hi Nate !
Sorry to bug you again haha. But I really want to get the Standard and only the 156 is available. Do you think it will feel to unresponsive for my boot size etc ?
Hi Ian
I think it’s mostly weight that make this board on the big side for you. With your boot size, it’s not actually super wide for you. I would put you on around a 155 for your weight/height specs as your “standard all-mountain” size. So the 156 isn’t far off that. But it’s on the wider end of a good range for your boots, so that in combination with being on the high end of your length range, makes it on the big side of your range overall. But it’s doable.
Ah ok yeah I totally understand. Normally I ride around 155 or 156 so that’s why I was a little hesitant to go for the 153, but as you said I’m more in the weight range of the 53. I actually was able to hunt down a 153 ! Rode it a couple times so far ,and it definitely is a small amount wider than my 155 Headspace was . That extra width def helps with railing carves you can really lay this thing over. It also really does feel like the perfect balance of having stability for charging, but also being playful. Much smoother at speed than the my Headspace yet still easy to butter and def has more pop than the headspace . I even hit some park features and it feels great in the park too :). The only thing I had to get used to a little, which was more due to the conditions was that it doesn’t have the same edge hold as my Headspace on super hard / icy snow. Probably due to the little bit of rocker in the ends but also its kind of hard to beat magne traction for that haha. But yeah overall the Standard is definitely a super versatile all mountain board, I can see why it ranked so high with you and thanks for the help ! 🙂
Hi Ian
Thanks for the update and your insights. Very much appreciated. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the work you put in your website, amazing reviews and so helpful! I’ve been looking for the right snowboard for me to buy (my first own board), but I’ve now looked at so many different options that my head is spinning, so was hoping you could maybe help out a bit!
I would say I’m an intermediate to advanced (more on the advanced side) snowboarder that likes to do a bit of everything. I like to play around when going down slopes, like to do (small) jumps and tricks wherever I can, like to explore off piste and look for tree roads or soft snow, like to get up to speed and being able to carve well. If we pass a park I’ll get in there for sure, but won’t spend hours there. Focus for me is more on going down mountains, freestyle, exploring off piste, getting up to speed etc. I would think I would need an all mountain board, directional twin, that’s playful but still able to hold carves and get up to speed. Below are the options that I’m left with after research, but with each I have concerns (but maybe it’s just me looking too much for the perfect board).
– Yes Standard or Greats (worried that it’s too stiff)
– Salomon Assassin (worried about performance at speed)
– Bataleon Goliath or Evil Twin (like their specs but worried about 3BT and the learning curve, and how it’s manoeuvrability will be in tight spots)
– Jones Mountain Twin (seems to be not great at icier parts)
– LibTech TRS (really like this one but worried about performance in powder, since it’s a true twin)
– GNU Rider’s Choice (worried that it’s more of a park board and that it will perform bad off piste and in powder)
– Burton Custom Flying V (worried about stiffness and edge hold)
A lot of options as you can see, but just getting stuck at what would be the best option for me. FYI – I’m between 5”10 / 5”11 (180cm) and around 170 pounds (77kg).
Thanks in advance!
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy
Thanks for your message.
Given that you need something that will do well in powder, I would probably cross off the TRS and Greats. And given you want to ride fast as well, I would probably cross off the Rider’s Choice. It’s not terrible at speed, but I think you’ll likely want something that’s a little better at speed. The Assassin is OK at speed, but not quite as good in powder as others on the list you have. The Custom Flying V isn’t great in icy conditions – that’s it’s only real downside, but since you were concerned about the Mountain Twin (MT) in icy conditions, it’s probably going to concern you more. The Mountain Twin is decent in icy conditions – and certainly better than the Custom Flying V, in my experience. It’s as good as the Assassin. Not quite as good as the likes of the Standard/Greats, or the GNU/Lib Tech options you’ve listed, but still decent.
I haven’t ridden any Bataleon boards, so can’t say much there.
So, I would be leaning either Standard or MT. Standard not as good on a carve as the Greats, IMO, but it’s better in powder – and a more all-rounder, which you seem to be looking for. And not as stiff, IMO, as it’s listed as. I would call it 6/10 flex – same as the Mountain Twin.
But long story short, I’d be leaning Standard or Mountain Twin for what you’re describing. If you can let me know your boot size, I would be happy to make a sizing suggestion.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your response. Really helpful, this has really narrowed down the options for me and I’ll likely go for one of your recommendations.
What size would you recommend for the MT and Standard? I have boot size 10 to 10.5, I’m 5”10 / 5”11 (180cm) and around 170 pounds (77kg).
I was thinking the 156 Standard or 157 MT? I could get a Standard 159 fairly cheap, but worried that the size is a bit too big.
Many thanks!
Hi Jeremy
I’d be thinking the same for your specs (156 Standard, 157 MT). Yeah, unfortunately, I think the 159 would be a little too big for the Standard for you, IMO.
Thanks Nate for your amazing site and content.
I’m looking to upgrade and get an all mountain board that fits my needs better. I’m 5’8 180-185lbs size 9 DC boots, athletic/strong. Currently riding the step ons but also have some malivita’s that I rode the last two seasons.
I have a 153 Rome stalefish so I don’t necessarily need an all mountain board that handles deep pow.
My current all mountain board is a 2018 Yes The Greats 156. I like it but feel like there’s something better for me.
I’m 43 (but still think I’m 25) intermediate rider. I look for natural jumps, side hits, rollers, etc. but not in the park too much other than some small and mid ramps and no jibs. I’m decent switch and getting better, same with butters.
I’m looking for something that I can both carve and ride fast, but also something with decent pop and can really have fun and play with and progress with.
I just can’t decide between several boards.
The Standard
Typo
Assassin/assassin Pro
?????
Also, after having the stalefish last season I enjoyed the directional nature of it and how it handled. So I’m torn if a directional twin is the better option too.
I’ll likely only land jumps switch and play around switch but doubt I’ll be launching switch. If that helps at all.
Any suggestions on boards and what size you’d go with.
Thanks in advance.
Jonathan.
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of riding switch, I think you’ll be fine with something directional twin, given what you’re describing. The likes of the Standard, Typo and Assassin/Assassin Pro are going to be fine riding switch.
My instinct is leaning towards the Assassin Pro, given that you’re athletic, strong and want to carve and bomb, but still have a little bit of playfulness and good pop. I’d be leaning 156, but you could go out to the 159, if you were wanting to go a little longer.
The Standard would certainly work too. In that I’d go no longer than 156 – it’s a wider board. But I’d be leaning Assassin Pro, just because I think you can get a better carve out of it than with the Standard. Same goes versus the likes of the Assassin and Typo. Particularly with the Typo, you may not get the stability at speed that you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome. Thank you for the feedback. I’ve been watching more of Ryan Knaptons videos and as I age could see myself playing more with carves, butters, and more ground type freestyles as well. I think the assassin pro fits the bill even more if that’s the route I end up going. Is that accurate?
Any suggestions on a better suited board for that style? Just curious. Thanks so much for your feedback already.
Hi Jonathan
It kinda depends. If you want that mix of being able to carve but still butter well, then I wouldn’t necessarily go with what Ryan Knapton would ride. That guy can butter anything, no matter how stiff it is. But one thing you could consider is going with a twin, full camber board (if you weren’t planning on riding much powder). But I probably wouldn’t want to go as stiff as what Ryan would go, if you want to include butters – unless you’re a powerhouse butterer like he is!
Something like:
– Burton Blossom (or Freethinker – though you’d want to be pretty strong to butter the Freethinker easily)
– YES Jackpot
Or something mostly camber, like:
– Niche Crux
– Ride Burnout
– Ride Benchwarmer
– Salomon Huck Knife or Huck Knife Pro
Or full camber, but directional twin, like:
– Arbor Shiloh Camber
– Burton Custom Camber
Thank you sir. I just ordered the assassin pro 156. I appreciate all your help and suggestions.
You’re very welcome Jonathan. 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. Happy riding!
Dear Nate,
Thank you for your review!
I would like to ask your opinion, I plan to buy my first own board+binding. I’m currently 230lbs, but plan to reduce to 210 and stay there, 6.3 feet, own a Salomon Dialogue Boa US10.5, intermediate level, riding for about 3 years, mostly groomers, bits of trees and powder.
I’m considering the yes. standard (162), typo (161) or capita mercury (160w) with Falcor/Atlas/Cartel X bindings.
What do you say, am I on the right track regarding SB designs and sizes? Or should I consider other options?
Thank you!
Hi Gabor
Yeah, I think you’re on the right track. Some things to note.
The Typo is the most playful of those 3 – the quickest edge to edge as well. Not quite as good in powder or in terms of stability at speed as the other 2. The Mercury is the most aggressive and takes the most power to ride. The Standard is in between.
Size-wise, I think you’d be better to go 161 for the Mercury. It’s well wide enough for your boots, IMO. You don’t need to go as wide as the 160W. For the Typo, the 161 could be bordering on being too narrow. It’s probably fine, depending on your binding angles and depending on how deep you carve, but it could be pushing it. The 163W isn’t overly wide for a wide board – and is a doable length for you – so that’s an option too. The Standard 162 is plenty wide enough, in fact a little too wide for 10.5s. Even the 159 is wide for 10.5s. You could consider sizing down to that. The 159 Standard would be more in line with the 161 Typo, in terms of sizing.
In terms of bindings, all of those would match the Standard and Mercury well. Bordering on too stiff for the Typo though, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you Nate!
Actually I’m leaning more and more toward the Standard. What mixes my situation a bit, that my boot will be probably a bit short (my feet are mondo 285). Will the Standard 159 also work with a US11 (or even US11.5 … in case) Salomon or would be too narrow?
Thank you again!
Hi Gabor
The 159 Standard is wide enough for 11.5s. It’s as wide as a typical wide board – wider than some wide boards.
Hi Nate
Thanks for such detailed reviews.
I’m a novice here and this season will be my forst time snowboarding. I’m working hard to get my carving down. I’m about 6’ tall and currently weigh about 200 pounds but typical weight range is 165-175. (Lots of covid weight lol) my boot size is 10.5
I’m interested in an all mountain board that I won’t have to grow out if as my skills get better. Looking at mostly groomed trails, some powder, and just wanna do more aggressive carves at decent speed. I’ve narrowed down between the Standard 159 and the Typo 158. My current weight is on the edge of the Typo 158s weight range but would you be able to recommend between the two? I shouldn’t need to get a wide board correct? I have Burton Moto boots with the mission reflex bindings also by burton.
I’ll be honest I’m more drawn to the Typo because the design looks so sick but obviously that’s meaningless at the end of the day. Thanks in advance!
Hi Mick
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Typo for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s the easier board to progress on. It’s one of the better boards for those who are higher-end beginners that want a board that will last them as they get better. It’s still not something I would typically recommend for a first timer, but at a stretch I think it’s doable – and certainly more doable than the Standard. The Standard isn’t super advanced, but you’d want to be a solid intermediate rider, IMO. It’s something that could slow down your progression at the start, even if it’s going to be something you may never grow out of.
Secondly, in terms of matching your boot/binding combo, you’d ideally want to go a little stiffer in both boots and bindings. For the Typo, the bindings match well. The boots are still on the softer side for the Typo but still doable.
Size-wise, the Typo in 158 would be perfect, IMO. As a beginner you want to size down a little – at your current specs, I would consider your “standard all-mountain” size to be roughly 161. So 158 works well, IMO. Then if you do get back to your typical weight range, by that time your skills will be improved and at that weight range you “standard all-mountain” size drops to right around that 158. So the timing could work perfectly.
If you did go Standard, I would actually go to 156. The Standard, even though it doesn’t specify wide sizes is a wider than average board. In the 159 it’s quite wide for 10.5s and the combination of width and length makes it on the big side. For your current specs, it could work, if you were a more advanced rider. But if you get back to your typical weight it’s on the big side. Even the 156 is on the wider side for 10.5s, but that little bit of sizing down compensates for that, making the 156 a good bet for at your normal weight range. But I would go Typo anyway.
Hope this helps
Hey thanks for such a great review! I’m 6’1″ , around 210 pounds, and wear a size 12 or so. I used to have the Yes Greats from 2021 (wider board) and got the longest one I could at 159 cm.
Any advice on the size for this one?
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I would typically size the Standard either similar to the Greats or go a little longer with the Standard, depending on how someone wants to ride them. For your specs, particularly given you’re riding 12s, I would be leaning 162. Not because the 159 would be too narrow, but because I think around 163 is what I would consider your “all-mountain” length, so 159 would be sizing down, IMO, which I’d recommend if you had smaller feet, but given your boot size, I don’t think you need to size down with this board.
Also, compared to the Greats, there is less effective edge versus overall length on this board, so you can go a little longer than you would on the Greats.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hugely helpful! One last question – is it safe to safe, then, that 167 cm would be too big?
Hi Mark
Yeah, 167 would be going too big for you, IMO. I would sooner go 159 than 167, if I was you. Ideally 162, but if it was between 159 and 167, I’d go 159.
Hi Nate,
First, thanks for all you do here and providing a wealth of knowledge and patience with people. Several members of my family have used your page for educating themselves and with purchases.
6’ tall, size 11-11.5 boot, and usually fluctuate between 187 – 197 lbs. I was a solid intermediate rider but have taken a couple years off riding. Before this I routinely borrowed a never summer west and a burton don’t remember the name (I believe it was either 159 or 161 ?) Looking to get my own setup now and am torn between the Yes Typo and Standard. I want an all-around mountain board (carving, powder, groomers, side hits, a little trees) and this season I may venture into the park for the first time for just a bit. I skated for over 10 years in my youth, so why not. Looking for a size recommendation on both those boards if you think they’ll work. I was thinking about not going to big, because I’d like something that turns edge to edge a little better than what I’ve rode in the past.
Thanks!!
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
Between those two boards, the Typo is the more playful (Standard certainly isn’t overly aggressive by any means though) and is going to be quicker edge-to-edge. But if you size the Standard right it will be fine edge to edge. But if edge to edge speed is what you’re looking for, then the Typo is a standout there. The Standard is a little better in powder, it’s better at speed and on big carves, but still quite buttery (though Typo more buttery) and nothing that’s super aggressive or stiff or anything.
Size-wise, I would be looking at (based on roughly 192lbs):
– Typo: 159W is probably the best all-round size for you for this board, IMO. But given that you want to go nimble, the 156W becomes an option. I rode the 155 last time (6’0″, 175lbs, size 10) I rode the Typo and whilst it felt on the small side, it wasn’t crazy small, but it was super nimble. It’s not going to be one for bombing without wobble in that size (even the 159W isn’t going to be a bomber really, but more so with the 156W), but if that’s not a concern, then it should work. And will be a good size for getting started in the park too.
– Standard: 156. This is sizing down from I would consider your typical “all-mountain” size. It’s a wider board, but with 11-11.5s it won’t be wide for you. So you could ride the 159 for sure. But given that you’re looking to get something more nimble, I would be leaning 156.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
My specs: 5’7 155lbs Size 10 boot
I am having a hard time deciding between a board. My top 5 in order are:
1. Yes. Standard 153
2. Yes. The Greats 151
3. Jones MT 154
4. Capita Asymulator 152
and I was probably gonna add the Union Force or Burton cartel X to one of those boards
I ride the entire mountain cornice runs @mammoth, rails/boxes, butters, trees, dad park jumps, powder (when available, but I want to be able to enjoy it), and carving at high speeds.
I previously had gnu boards, Burton custom, atomic hatchet, and I just felt like they did not do everything I wanted them to do. So this time I am tryin to get that Quiver of 1.
Thank you!
Hi Bradley
Thanks for your message.
Given that you want to have that powder performance available when you get powder, I would be leaning Mountain Twin or Standard. If that powder is never more than a foot or so deep, then you could definitely get away with the Greats and Asymulator, but if you wanted to be ready for the bigger dumps, then I’d be leaning MT or Standard.
Size-wise, I think you’re spot on with those sizes – the only one I’d question is whether to go to the 154 for the Asymulator. The 152 doable, but that would be the only debate. I would be happy to give that more thought, if you were to decide to go with it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey nate, I’m having a really hard time picking between this years standard in a 153 and the basic in a 155. I’m 5’10 180lbs with a size 10 boot. I’m an intermediate-advanced level rider who loves to ride the whole mountain. I rode the basic a couple of years ago and loved it… but from everything I hear the standard is even better. I really prioritize maneuverability over all, and like a board that’s quick edge to edge but can also bomb when need be. Any thoughts?
Hi Groove
Thanks for your message.
The Basic is the most nimble of the 2 for sure. The Basic is really easy to maneuver – and particularly if you go with the 155, it’s going to give you super easy maneuverability. The Standard isn’t bad in terms of maneuverability though – and particularly if you size to the 153 with your specs, it should be plenty maneuverable and still offer you more in terms of bombing/stability at speed. But for pure edge to edge speed, the Basic 155 will outdo the Standard 153, IMO.
Have you considered the Typo? It’s as maneuverable, or at least very close to, as the Basic, but it’s a little better at speed. Not to the same extent as the Standard, but it’s a little better in terms of speed.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, I’m going to buy the Yes Standard and trying to figure out the right size. I’m 5’10”, 170lbs with a ~9 boot size. I’m an Intermediate rider (on the lower end since I’m just getting back into it, but should be at my past solid intermediate level soon) that mostly rides groomers in Colorado, but excited to venture out in between trees and whatnot. Don’t do much park, but won’t rule it out. I want it to be stable carving and at higher speeds, but I don’t get that fast compared to others. I’d prioritize turning and carving vs freestyle riding. I’ve been reading that the 156 is going to feel a bit more nimble and easier to initiate turns, but the 159 might be more stable at higher speeds. I think the 156 is better for me as I won’t be doing any crazy speeds, but curious what you recommend of any of the size. Also, any recommendations for boots/bindings that would be good for this board and my style of riding? From your bindings lists and other things I’ve read it seems like Union Forces, Union Strata, and Burton Cartels are good options. Your reviews are awesome!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I think 156 for this board for you. For your specs, I’d put you on around 158 for a standard all-mountain length (assuming a relatively advanced level). But given the width of this board, I think it’s better to go down than up. Given that it sounds like you’ll get back to solid intermediate fairly quickly, I wouldn’t necessarily size down at all for ability level reasons, but because of that width I would size to the 156. The 159, when you combine the width and length is getting on the big side for you, IMO.
For bindings, the Force, Strata and Cartel would all be a good match, IMO – and the K2 Lien AT. Anything with a 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be your best bet, IMO. So any of those 4 (6/10 flex) or you could also check out:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
If you wanted to go a little stiffer.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, appreciate the help! So stoked I found your website. Keep up the good work it’s making an impact.
You’re very welcome Chris. And thanks for the kind words. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Amazing amount of information and expertise on your site – hoping you can help me out!
I’m looking at a Standard and deciding between a 156 or a 159. I’m 6’1”, 180lbs, 10.5 boot (Burton) and 12/12 duck (on previous board). I like to ride a bit of everything – cruise and carve the groomers/pow, follow the kids on side hits and some trees. Not much park for me, though.
Feel like I’m right between sizes with both weight and boot. Any advice to help me decide would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Can see your debate between those sizes – it’s a tough call between them.
You’re very similar specs to me in terms of height and weight, but just that little bit longer in the foot. I really like the 156 personally, but part of the reason I like to size down to that is that it’s a bit outside my preferred width-range. Ideally I like to be somewhere between 260-265mm at the inserts. With the inserts on the 156 at around 270mm, it’s just a little wide, but then I’d typically ride an all-mountain board a little longer (more like 157-159), so sizing down to 156 works nicely. With 10.5s that shifts that width range a little, so less need to size down. Going to the 159 however, you do go to a 275mm width at inserts – which is getting wide for 10.5s – and 159 wouldn’t be sizing down for you, IMO.
Hope all that makes sense! I don’t think either size is wrong for you, but I think it depends no what you want to prioritize the most. E.g. if speed, stability at speed and float in powder are more important to you versus maneuverability at slow speeds (e.g. trees, sidehits) – then 159 will probably work better – just make it harder in the trees/sidehits. Visa versa, then 156.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for this – it does help! I think I’m leaning toward the 159 to for the speed/stability. Really appreciate your perspective!
You’re very welcome Chris. Hope you have an awesome season! Let me know what you go with and how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow (if you think of it at the time).
Hey Nate,
Awesome review, and something that really helped me decide on this board. I ended up changing my mind from a 162 to a 167, after speaking with a guy from Evo over the phone based on my weight and riding style. I go off small and medium jumps here and there, have yet to master spins off them but like the idea of switching off natural “jumps” while cruising at a good clip. I normally enjoy most of the day going fairly fast and carving in safe spots on blues (haha I live in the Northeast, so we have a fair amount of ice).
My question is did I go too big on the length? I weigh 250 lbs and am 5’10”. My current board is a 158 K2 Zeplin which I bought in 2000 (I was 15). I always felt it was too short as I grew a bit, and now with my weight I know I’ll be in the 160+ range. I have two kids who love to ski, take me into the park sometimes, but I never follow them in the trees on a board. I would like to start buttering a little and still be able to negotiate spins, but spend most of my time cruising and wanted to get your thoughts on 167 vs 162. I also bought burton step ons to make life a little easier and so the kids aren’t waiting for dad. The guy I spoke with said it’d take a bit to get used to a 167 from a 158, but over time I’d like it for its stability at higher speeds. I’d like to hear your thoughts given my style, height/weight, and conditions here in the Northeast.
Thanks, Dave
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
In this case, IMO, it’s really going to depend on your boot size. The 167 actually looks to be marginally narrower at the waist and so will likely be narrower at the inserts as well, depending on the stance width you were to ride it with, but it’s not so much about getting your boots onto the board, it’s more about whether or not the board is wide for your boots or not. If you’ve got 12s or 13s or something like that, then I think the 167 is going to be fine, but if you’ve got smaller boots, then sizing down makes sense. I don’t think 167 is too long for you, but if it’s too wide for you and that long at the same time, then I think it’s getting a bit big overall, given you want to be able to butter and spin with it. You would definitely get more stability at speed from the 167, but it might be at the cost of maneuverability, if it’s too wide. Going shorter makes up for the maneuverability if the board is too wide. So if you could let me know your boot size, that would really help (and out of curiosity – did you tell the guy your boot size or did he ask for it?)
Hey Nate,
He didn’t ask but knew because I ordered an 11 wide burton photon boot which fits a large step on binding.. I told him my height and weight… I told him I ride a 158 since teenage years and I’m in the Northeast. A 9cm jump didn’t seem too big when I saw it was a little over 3.5 inches, but everything I’m reading puts me in a 162 besides my weight… which both the 167 and 162 say 220+. I assumed a 167 would be better for 250lbs but now I’m not sure, given the unknown of how hard it might be to butter, spin, and maneuver. I don’t currently butter or even spin, but didn’t want to rule it out. I measured up 3.5 inches from my old board and it’s just above my mouth but below my nose, it comes in Friday. Haha its so hard because I can’t return it once I ride it.
Thanks, Dave
Hi Dave
Yeah makes it hard when you can’t return it once you ride it, for sure.
I think 167 is fine for your height/weight specs in terms of length, it’s just whether the combo of the height and width is too much. The 162/167 are on the wider side for 11s. Not ultra wide, but wider than ideal, which means sizing down can make sense. You’re looking at around 280mm at the inserts on the 162 and 278mm at the inserts on the 167, depending on stance width. I’d say ideal width range at inserts for 11s would be around 270-275. So it’s not crazy wide for you or anything. It’s a tough call. If they had something in between – a 164 or 165! If you wore 10s for boots, then I’d be more definite about saying go 162. With 11s, it’s 50/50 on those sizes.
So yeah, I think it comes down to whether you’d prefer to optimize stability at speed and float in powder or maneuverability and butters/spins etc.
Good day Nate,
Hope this message finds you well! First things first, I chanced upon your website and have spent hours digesting your thoughts on various board/bindings, as well as combed through most of the comments and replies – wealth of knowledge there, so I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to every message that you get in detail.
About me – been riding on/off for the past 10 or so years, usually less than 5 trips each season. I have been riding on a hand me down Burton Custom that is probably >15 years old (design indicates late 90s/early 00s) with Burton Freestyle v11.0 bindings. I always thought it was just acceptable, and never truly felt confident coming down the mountain.
I got new boots last year after realizing I was wrongly sized at the Burton store (go figure), and got new DC Judge boots which greatly improved my overall experience. I figured this would be the year to get a new board/binding that will last for a while.
I ride 90% mountain, occasionally through the trees and small jumps, and predominantly board in the North East (unpredictable weather, slush at times, icy during others, rarely nice powder). I generally prefer slightly stiffer boards as it exudes a greater sense of control, but not set in stone with that.
From all the research I have done, it seems like the following are boards I should be considering:
– YES. Standard/Typo
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Bataleon Whatever
I believe these are mainly all-mountain boards, which is in line with my goal of having one board that will “do it all”. Both YES. boards seem to be highly reviewed, with the ability to deal with icy conditions whereas the Jones is not quite rated for that (per your reviews). Between both YES. boards, it looks like the Standard is slightly stiffer, which is something I would like, unless I am missing something? The big curveball is the Bataleon board – I am unable to find much reviews on it but everything I’ve read indicates that it is a strong contender as well. Do you have any experience with the brand/board?
I had previously considered the CAPiTA D.O.A. as well, but that seems to be more of a all-mountain freestyle board, which is not quite suited to me.
Question: I’m 6’0″ and about 190 lbs, with 290CM/US11.0M sized DC Judge boots. Does my size call for a wider board? I am having issues with overhang on my current setup (I really noticed it coming down a steep trail last season), and would really like to not repeat the same mistake. The Standard seems to come in 156/159 so I assume the former would be better, and the Typo comes in 158/159W and I’m assuming the latter in this case?
As for bindings, the following are what I have narrowed them down to:
– Union Strata
– Union Force
I’m leaning more towards the Strata from the fact that it has better padding, and seems to be the more comfortable option. My question is: will the mini-disc be advantageous/disadvantageous from a board feel, or even maintenance perspective? From your Strata review, it looks like a mini-disc provides better butterability/board feel?
Question:
– Seeing as I have a stiffer boot, does it make sense to naturally do with a slightly stiffer board/binding setup so all parts of the setup jive with each other? Or it doesn’t really matter?
Please feel free to correct any misunderstandings that I might have, or to recommend something different altogether. I am not locked in on any one of these, and would rather purchase something with input from someone who has experience with them, rather than my WAG (wild-a**-guess).
Thank you for your time, Nate.
Best,
Jay L.
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would say between the Standard and Typo for what you’re describing, I would go Standard – it’s a little stiffer. Both the Mountain Twin (MT) and Standard are around a 6/10 flex (by my feel), with the Typo more of a 4.5.
The MT isn’t as good in icy conditions as the Standard, but it’s not bad either. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say Standard 5/5, or maybe 4.5/5 at worst and MT 4/5, so the MT can handle hard/icy conditions pretty well.
In terms of matching gear it’s a good idea to try to match the flex relatively closely, but doesn’t have to be exact. As a general rule, I prefer not to ride softer boots and bindings on a stiffer board, but if the boots and bindings, particularly boots, are a little stiffer on a softer board, that way around works better for me than the other way around, if that makes sense. Still wouldn’t go too crazy though. A 10/10 flexing boot on a 4/10 flexing board for example wouldn’t be ideal. I haven’t ridden the Judge but couldn’t say for sure. It has a flex rating of 8/10, but based on my experience with other DC boots, I’d predict it would be closer to 7/10. Whether 8/10 or 7/10, I think it’s still in range for a 6/10 flexing board/binding combo, so I think you’re good there. I probably wouldn’t go Judge with Typo though, I think the gap is getting a bit big at that point (too stiff a boot/binding on a softer board can make the board feel a bit twitchy).
For bindings, both the Strata and Force would be a good match for either the Standard or MT. The mini-disc definitely makes for better board feel/butterability, IMO and in my experience. A flexier base plate also helps with board feel. Whilst the Force has a rating of 7/10 for base plate and highback, I felt it had a softer highback and stiffer base plate versus the Strata. Overall on snow, they both feel like around a 6/10 to me. I would say one difference which might also help is that the Strata has a more explosive/springy kind of response, whereas the Force has a smoother, more even response, if that makes sense.
Size-wise, the Standard is a little wider than the average “regular width” board, so in terms of width you should be good on either the 156 and 159. Both sizes work for your specs, I think the best way to really decipher is whether you want to optimize agility (particularly for trees), ease of jumps, side hits, buttering etc (then 156) or if you want to optimize for speed, stability and float in powder (then go 159). Also if you’re a more advanced rider, I’d be leaning 159, if more intermediate, then more to 156.
Size-wise for the Mountain Twin, in between the 156W and 159W. Again both would work, and would depend on the same as discussed above.
From what you’re describing, probably leaning 159/159W, but 156/156W are doable, depending on how you’re predominantly using them.
I don’t currently test Bataleon boards unfortunately, so I can’t say much there. Hoping to get on some in the future, hopefully as soon as this winter.
Hope this gives you more to go off.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great review. I’m considering the Yes Standard 2022 for this season. I’d be using it mostly for trees, side hits, groomers, some speed, and powder when it’s available. Not really much in the park. I’m 5’7.5″ and 160 lbs, and I just got Ride Lasso size 9.5 boots. What do you think would be the best length if I go with the Standard? Is there a different board you’d recommend instead of the Standard? And can you recommend bindings that would let me take advantage of the slam back inserts if I come across a powder day? Really appreciate your reviews and any feedback you have! Thanks!
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
For your specs and how you describe your riding, I think the 153 would be your best bet. I think the Standard in 153 should work well for what you’re describing. There are of course plenty of others that would also fit what you’re describing, but I think that’s a good bet. I think you’d likely find the 156 not maneuverable enough for trees with your specs, and the 151 would be too small for powder and speed, so I think 153, the sweet spot for you, for sure.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I’m doing a complete equipment upgrade this season and your reviews and comment sections are incredibly helpful. Thanks a lot dude!
First, some stats. I’m 5’11” (180 cm) and currently around 155-160 lbs (70-73 kg). I have a US size 10 (EUR 43) boot, but I might try going for a 9.5 for the next pair. I’m living in Italy and most of my riding is at resorts in the Alps. I ride a lot of groomers, but I have the most fun looking for deeper stuff which often involves mixing in some trees. Might do a couple of passes through the park per weekend.
I’m currently riding an older (2013) Burton Custom, full camber, 158W that I picked up used for cheap. Its fine on the groomers, but I’d like an All-Mountain that can handle more powder. It also feels too big for me and I’d like something that’s more playful, nimble and quicker edge to edge.
I’ve narrowed it down to three options:
– Yes Standard
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Lib Tech Golden Orca
From what I can tell, Standard and Mountain Twin are neck and neck. Similar boards, similar pricing, great reviews everywhere (a friend who has tried both says he preferred the Standard and its hard to go against a personal recommendation). The Golden Orca is a step up on price and is brand new so there is less info available. It’s probably more board than I need, but seems like its the best of the three for serious powder. The T.Rice marketing is working…
FINALLY SOME QUESTIONS:
– I was thinking of going as small as possible on length (agility over powder performance). I can only find the Standard in 156 (153 is sold out) while the Mountain Twin is available locally at 154 and 157. Any advice you can give between these options? Would I be missing much in the deep stuff with the smaller boards?
– Ignoring the cost, is there any reason to get the Standard or Mountain Twin over the Golden Orca? (maybe you haven’t tried it yet, so could be impossible to say for sure…)
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of length, I think something in the 155-158 range is probably a good bet for height/weight specs, but if you’re looking to go shorter to prioritize agility over float/stability at speed, then 154 is doable (i.e. Mountain Twin 154). Note that part of why the Custom will be feeling so big is that it’s a wide board. In my experience, you don’t need to go wide most of the time with 10s and usually wides are too wide for 10s. Some wides are OK, as they’re not overly wide, but the 158W is overall too big for your specs and it’s largely because of the width. If going with a board that wide, when you’ve got 10s, then I’d want to ride a shorter length to compensate for it being too wide.
With something like the Standard, which is wide for a regular width board, I’d look to downsize a little bit. The 156 is still a possibility, as it will still feel smaller than the 158W Custom. But 153 is also a possibility (if you had availability), given that you’re looking to prioritize agility. 153 is still well wide enough for 10s, IMO.
For the Mountain Twin (MT), typically I’d say go 157 and that’s going to be a good width and length. But given you want to prioritize agility, the 154 makes sense and would definitely work for your specs. The MT is also wider at the inserts than the waist width would suggest, so you’ve definitely got something wide enough for 10s, even in the 154, but it’s not as wide overall as the Standard. Some spec comparisons for reference:
– 154 MT (251mm waist, 264mm at back insert, 292mm tip and tail)
– 157 MT (254mm waist, 267mm at back insert, 296mm tip and tail) – note this is at a 560mm (22″) stance width – it’s a couple of mm wider at it’s reference stance of 600mm (23.6″) but that’s a really wide reference stance, so I ride it narrower than that.
– 153 Standard (253mm waist, 265mm at back insert, 299mm tip and tail)
– 156 Standard (258mm waist, 270mm at back insert, 305mm tip and tail)
In terms of powder performance, definitely looking at not as good on the smaller sizes. It’s a noticeable difference, but fairly subtle when talking about a 3cm length difference. But yeah, definitely sacrificing a little in terms of float in powder and stability at speed, but gaining more agility and playfulness.
I haven’t tried the Golden Orca yet, but I have tried the Orca. Definitely going to be better in powder. But in terms of getting something that’s quicker edge to edge and more playful, not going to be that, IMO. I didn’t find the Orca very quick edge to edge – it should ride really well in powder (I didn’t get any to test it in, when I rode it), but on hard pack it’s not quick to edge to edge, in my experience. To get it to feel playful and or quick edge to edge, you’d have to go pretty short with it, IMO. Golden Orca doesn’t look to be quite as wide as the regular Orca, so maybe don’t have to size down quite as much, so might get away with the 153. If you were to regular Orca, I’d go down to 150 at least. I find T.Rice boards to be really good for when your bombing the mountain fairly straight lining it. They seem really good for bombing with aggressive, straight big lines. But not so good for maneuvering in tight spaces. I haven’t met a Travis Rice model that I’ve liked riding in trees. With lots of powder in the trees, I’m sure the Orca would be amazing, but otherwise, not the most nimble. Again, this is all based on the regular Orca and I haven’t ridden the Golden Orca.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Loving your review on the Yes Standard. I am looking at the Yes Standard 2022 for this season. I’d be using it more for carving trees, buttering, speed, and some powder – not as much on the parks and rails. Weight fluctuates between 140-150, height between 5’7″ and 5’8″, boot size 8.5, currently riding a 153cm more for parks/groomers. Leaning towards a 153 again if you think that’s appropriate? Any recommendations/feedback would be greatly appreciated! Cheers!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
Typically I’d say around 153 would be a good length for you, with a narrower width board, but with the Standard being a bit wider than average, and with 8.5 boots, I’d size down a little on this board. The 153 is around 265mm at the inserts, which is even a little wider than a typical regular width board in a 156-159 length range. In this case, I think the 151 would be more appropriate. It’s still on the wider side for 8.5s, but sizing down that length a little compensates for that. Even the 149 is in your range – and I think if you were going to be doing more park/freestyle with it, then I’d be inclined to give the 149 some thought as well. But I think the 151 would work well. But 153 a little too big overall, IMO, particularly if you’re going to be using it in trees and buttering.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m deciding between YES Standard and GNU Riders Choice Asym C2X.
I love to make the whole mountain my playground and love laps through the park (from jibs and rails to meadium/large jumps). Jumps are my favorite. I am slowly spending less time in the park as I get older though, lol. I love riding switch and playing around with natural features on the hill. Sometimes I bomb the hill or carve up the groomers for most of the day. Snow near me is usually hard/icy.
What do you think between these 2 boards?
I think the more freestyle/playful oriented GNU is winning out. I rarely get to ride deep powder. Also, really want to try out an Asym board…
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
You’ve narrowed it down to two really good options for what you’re describing and you wouldn’t be disappointed with either, IMO.
But yeah I agree that the Rider’s Choice is a little more freestyle oriented and a little more playful and not quite as good for powder, so given what you’re leaning towards and that you want to try an asym board, that’s probably the way to go. Both are really good in hard/icy conditions, in my experience.
The only other thing to consider is sizing. It’s possible that there’s one option that’s a better sizing match for you. I’m happy to let you know my sizing opinion, if you don’t already have sizes in mind. Would just need your height, weight and boot size (already have your riding style, which also comes into play for sizing).
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate!
I’m 5’11” , 150ish lbs, size 10 boots. I ended up going with last years riders choice model in the 154.5 length. Can’t wait to ride it! Previously I was on a 155 Ride Buckwild from 2012. I notice the new GNU RC seems a little softer flex compared to the Buckwild.
Hi Kyle
I think that’s a great size for your specs.
I never rode the Buckwild but looking at specs, looks like Buckwild 2012 was rated around a 6/10 flex. Rider’s Choice, by my feel, is around a 5/10 flex (GNU rate the 154.5 a 5.5/10). So it is likely a little softer. But also, sometimes a board feels softer to flex in hand and that doesn’t always translate to how it feels on snow. I always flex boards in hand before I get them out on snow to test them. And often boards might feel the same in hand, but then feel softer or stiffer on snow. Or one might feel stiffer in hand, but end up feeling the same on snow as one that felt softer in hand, etc etc. I still think it’s likely to feel a little softer on snow than the Buckwild, though, but I guess you’ll find out soon!
Hi, Nate!
Thanks for the detailed review. I am looking for a daily driver all mountain board that performs while in powder and the YES standard looks like a great choice But I am having an internal dilemma about what size I should get 153 or 156. I wear size 10.5 Van infuse boots, weight 155 lbs and I’m 6 1′. I’ve been riding a long time, I’d consider myself a advance rider, but have never tried out a volume shifted board before. I love to ride in the trees, off piste, rip sit hits and send cliffs. Always looking for that ungroomed natural terrain. Also like to ride switch and do some spins, but I stay away from jibbing. Will hit jumps in the park though. Life is all about those 10+ inch powder days, so I am leaning towards the 156 to maximize performance/float in powder. But my specs seems to line up with the 153 better, i guess I am a little scared to downsize that much. Currently riding a mid 2000s camber 158 burton custom that i have had for far too long. Whats size standard would you recommend for me?
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
I can see your dilemma for sure. It’s a tough choice between those 2 sizes. And I can see your hesitation to size down as much as 153, and ultimately I think it’s a good hesitation to have, as I think it would be sizing down a little too much. It’s borderline, but with 10.5 boots, I would say go 156. If it was a wider board – like a full on volume shifted board that was wider (the Standard is kind of in between – it’s definitely wide for a regular width board, but it’s not super wide that I’d class it as a full on short/wide board) – then definitely I’d say down to 153 or even shorter, depending on the model. But with 10.5s boots, the Standard 156 isn’t actually that wide for you. It’s at the wider end of a good range, IMO.
So, yeah, whilst it’s a close call, I’d say 153 is sizing down just a bit too much. With size 10 boots or less, or certainly 9.5 boots or less, I’d probably be leaning more 153, but I think 10.5s makes the 156 the best option, IMO, for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome, thanks for the response, I really appreciate it! I was leaning towards the 156 and this has helped me solidify my decision. Happy shredding!
You’re very welcome Sam. Happy shredding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all of the intel – your posts are super informative and helpful.
Been snowboarding for 14 years (guessing 80 days total) and owned a couple boards. Am looking for an all mountain board. I love glades and jumping (park and natural) but also want something that isn’t going to be terrible in either hard/icy conditions or powder (live in the NE, take trips out west every year). I do also enjoy riding at speed but don’t care much about jibbing.
I weigh 160 lbs and wear US 13 boots (down from size 14 street shoe). From the SP width sizing, I’m looking for boards that are 267+ mm at the waist (and that’s using the lower end). Most boards I’ve checked out (using your all mountain/all mountain freestyle lists) aren’t especially wide for the recommended lengths.
Waist widths:
* Yes Standard (263 mm for 159, 268 mm for 162)
* Jones Mountain Twin (261 mm for 159W, 263 mm for 162W)
* GNU Rider’s Choice (268 mm for 158W)
Currently riding a 156W skate banana (which is super chattery at high speeds).
Any recommendations for a lightweight bigfoot interested in my type of riding?
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Width sizing based off waist width is a convenient way to do things, because it’s what brands publish, but the more accurate way is by using width at inserts, which can differ, often quite a bit, for the same waist width.
The Yes Standard, for example is a board that’s wider at the inserts than the waist width suggests – the 159W, for example is around 275mm at the inserts. The waist width suggestions on the width sizing post assume a few things – one of them being that the difference between waist width and width at inserts is roughly 10mm. For the Standard it’s 12mm, so you could kind of say that it’s closer to a 265mm waist width (for the purposes of trying to fit your boots on it).
The Rider’s Choice is the other way around a little bit – the 158W has a waist width of 268mm, but the width at inserts is more like 276mm (so more like an 8mm difference). So very similar width at inserts for the Standard and Rider’s Choice, despite the waist widths looking quite far apart.
The Mountain Twin is another that has a wider width at inserts than the average. E.g. the 159W with a waist of 261mm is around 276mm at the back insert (275mm front insert), if you’re riding at the 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. Which is another thing to take into account. These numbers are all based on reference stance. If you have a wider stance, then that gives you more leeway width-wise. A wider stance puts your feet at a wider part of the board. I’m not sure what your preferred stance width is, but if you know and could let me know that would help and if not, if you could let me know your height as that will help to predict a stance width as well.
Another thing to think about is – have you ever had boot drag on your 156W Skate Banana. I would predict the Skate Banana to have roughly a 273mm width at inserts (if you’re going to measure yourself to confirm that, measure from the base of the board, from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge at the reference stance). If you’ve never had any boot drag issues with it, then you should be good on anything at least that width. Because other things, like binding angles, the profile of your boots (some are bulkier than others) and how deep you like to carve, all effect the chances of boot drag as well.
I think ideally at your weight, the 156 Standard would be better. But at 270mm at the inserts, it might be pushing it. If you ride it at a wider stance though, you’d get a bit more leeway. The reference stance on the Standard is quite narrow at 545mm (21.5″). If you went out to a 585mm stance (23″), you’d gain 2mm of width. And for MT 156W, you’d be looking at around 274mm at the back insert (273mm at the front insert), assuming a 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. So depending on your stance width and depending on whether or not you’ve had any issues with the width of the Skate Banana, those are possibilities. If you’re thinking that the Skate Banana feels too short, then of course, you could move up to the 159 or 159W as well. But want to try to get the best length as well as width.
If you do have trouble with boot drag on the Skate Banana and are looking for something wider than those options, I would be happy to have a good look into the options and come back with some wider options, whilst trying to keep within a good length range. But yeah, if you could let me know your height and typical stance width (if you know it) and your typical binding angles and the brand and model of your boots too, that would be great.
Hope this helps.
Wow – thank you. It would be handy if manufacturers posted widths at the inserts (or even CAD files so you could adjust for stance width). Just did some measurements for my current board/feet.
I am 6’3″ with a stance width of 23.5″ and my feet are just over 12″ (30.5 cm).
My boots are Vans Tri Fit X (size 13) and my toes are up the end of the toe box so not sure if I could realistically drop to 12.5. I’m open to getting new boots if it would make a difference.
Current binding angles are +12/0 (have ridden more duck footed in the past).
I haven’t had any trouble with drag on the Skate Banana but I also don’t carve hard. It’s the thing that I’m most looking to improve this season (I have my sights set on eurocarving).
I like the maneuverability of a short board (big fan of the glades) but I’m pretty unstable once I get up to speed. Have been looking at some of the volume shifted boards (specifically the Dancehaul 152) to stay short but also be a bit more stable. Do you have any thoughts on volume shifted boards? Also I don’t care too much about riding switch for long periods of time so I wouldn’t might a slight directional.
Really appreciate the time you take to write such useful responses!
Hi Alex
Yeah, it would be awesome to get CAD files for sure! But I think they’d be too paranoid people are going to steal their designs, I guess? Or they see it as too complicated for the general public. Personally it would make my job much easier! From my experience, it’s almost always around 2mm extra width for every 40mm (1.5″) of extra stance width.
Given that you’re looking to eurocarve – and that you’ve got a zero degree back binding angle, I think you’ll need to go wider than those boards. But I’d try not to go longer than around 159.
If you don’t mind going directional, then I think volume shifted boards could be a good way to go. But, given your boot size, you wouldn’t have to size down in the same way. You can almost just treat them like wide boards. Sizing down on a volume shifted board is mostly so that you can compensate for the extra width with a shorter length. Also, the downside of sizing down if you’re also looking to carve and need that stability at speed, is that you usually have quite a short effective edge on a volume shifted board – so you’re stability at speed isn’t typically amazing when you’re on edge, when on a board that short. But in your case, I think you can go volume shifted, but in the longer lengths. E.g. the Dancehaul, you could look at the 157. I haven’t ridden the Dancehaul, so I can’t give any firsthand insight as to how it rides or what the width at inserts is or anything like that.
Something like the YES Hybrid in 157 (277mm at the back insert at a 23″ stance width) could work, though it’s not a lot wider than something like the Mountain Twin 159W with a 23.5″ stance. But you’d gain a couple of mm of width.
The Arbor Single is worth checking out (new for 2022, I rode it in the winter and a really nice board) – it’s 268mm at the waist and 283mm at the back insert on the 152, so if you went 156, you’d be looking at roughly 285mm at the back insert – and that’s at a 21″ stance. So probably more like 287-288 at the back insert, which would give you more room to make eurocarves.
I haven’t ridden a ton of volume shifted boards, but the Single stands out as an option to really give you that extra width for eurocarves.
The Dancehaul is probably suitable too, I just don’t know enough about it.
Hey,
Thanks so much for your reviews, they’re great.
I think I’ve narrowed my list down to 3 boards, with available prices, the One LF 2019 (£230), the Slash Brainstorm (£240) or the Yes Standard (£340). I was wondering if you could give any tips as to what might suit me best, and if the standard is worth the extra outlay.
I’ve boarded for 2 seasons, would see myself as intermediate/advanced, and this will be the first board i buy after initially getting whatever the cheapest one was. I like having the freedom to cruise round through all terrain, and most of my freestyle will come on hits rather than the park, although i do like the odd park day. Hoping to be hunting powder whenever possible!
175cm and 150lbs with size 10 US boots
I’ll be skiing in France this season but will be hoping to keep hold of this board for a few seasons to come.
Cheers for your help
Hi JC
Thanks for your message.
If the price is a big factor in your choice, then if you can save £100 it’s probably worth doing. They’re all really good boards. The Standard is my personal favorite of the 3, but if saving £100 helps, then you’re still getting really good boards in the One and the Brainstorm. One caveat to that is the sizing. I think it’s worth the extra outlay if you couldn’t find the One or Brainstorm in the best sizes.
From what you’re describing they’re all definitely suitable. For the Standard, I would be looking at the 153. The Brainstorm the 154. It’s borderline too narrow for 10s though is the only thing. If you ride with +15/-15 angles and don’t tend to carve too aggressively and/or have low profile boots, then I think it would be fine. Otherwise, if might be pushing it being too narrow. The One LF, I’d say go 156. 153 is also a possibility in the One LF, but I’d be leaning 156 for that one, particularly for that extra powder float.
So yeah, I’d go for whichever you can find the best size in. i.e. if you can’t get the 154 Brainstorm (or are worried it’s too narrow) or the 156 One, then I’d look at getting the 153 Standard. But if you can get one of the 154 Brainstorm (and aren’t worried about width) or 156 One LF, then I’d go for one of those to save the cash.
Hope this helps with your decision
You are amazing, I really appreciate your thorough response to me and to everyone else. Your reviews are amazing and so is your care for people who respond. Thanks again, you’ve been a real help!
You are a true G and hopefully one day i’ll see you on the slopes!
You’re very welcome JC. Itching to get into the mountains and onto a board again! Hope you have an awesome season when it rolls around!
So decided to bag to Rossi board, found a great deal online so got the 2019, just completing my set now and was looking at Salomon Launch Boa boots and Salomon Trigger bindings? I was wondering what you thought of those? Do you maybe have any budget friendly suggestions for boots and bindings? Really wanna be mostly in the backcountry (looking to head to st anton) but do prefer a playful ride than just charging down
Hey Nate,
I grabbed the Rossi One based on your advice, found a great price for the 2019 online so jumped on it. Just need to complete the set now, I was looking at Salomon Trigger Bindings and Salomon Launch Boa boots (not committed to brand, just a coincidence) and wondered what you thought of these? Looking for something as budget friendly as possible. I’ll be riding in St Anton this winter so hopefully plenty of backcountry pow but I’m probably more a little more playful out there than a full charger but like to get some carves in before the skiiers come through.
Hi JC
I think the Launch and Trigger would work for boots and bindings. If you were being Fussy, I’d say they’re just slightly on the soft side for the One, but they’re in a range that will definitely work with the board, IMO.
For reference, I would consider the Trigger and Launch to be around a 5/10 flex versus the Rossi One being more of a 6/10. So, it’s getting pretty fussy, so I think you would be absolutely fine with those and they wouldn’t be a wrong choice. But some budget friendly options, in case you did want to look at something just a little stiffer:
– Bindings: Union Force or Burton Cartel (not quite as budget friendly as the Trigger, but still quite reasonable)
– Boots: Vans Invado Pro or Salomon Dialogue. But for boots also note that fit is the most important thing. So go with what fits best first, so long as it’s in a good flex range, and then think about other things.
But yeah, I think the Launch and Trigger work as a combo to go with the One, but those are some other slightly stiffer – more like 6/10 – options that you could consider.
Hey Nate, love your site man. Learned to board on a typo thinks to your recommendations and now want to move up to the standard. I’m 6 ft, currently 225 pounds but in the process of losing weight. Expect to be at least 210 maybe 200 by December. Size 11 boot. What size do you recommend?
Hi Ricky
Thanks for your message.
Assuming 200lbs, I would go 159. With size 11s, this board isn’t going to be super wide for you, but it’s still on the wider side for 11s in the 159. I’d say at 200lbs something around 161-162, assuming a relatively advanced level, but with the board being a bit wider, sizing to the 159 is your best bet, IMO. At 225lbs, I would be leaning more to the 162. At 210lbs, I’d still be more inclined to lean towards the 159, but only just and the 162 wouldn’t be a wrong choice then either. I’d be 60/40 towards the 159 at 210lbs. At 200lbs, more like 80/20 to the 159. At 225lbs, more like 80/20 towards the 162.
Hope this helps
I’m a classic over thinker. Realistically it’s only a 3 cm difference between the two boards I’m looking at though I guess wider also. Will it make that huge of a difference? Fwiw I’m far from advanced so I feel the 159 will be better due to that fact. Plus I think it will be more playful overall which is what I want. I’m just out to have fun.
Hi Ricky
Yeah, given you’re looking for more playful and more intermediate, I would go 159. 3cm makes more difference than you’d think. It’s not a mind bending difference, but it’s more noticeable than you’d think. I used to think the same, but after testing identical boards head to head in different sizes a few times (sometimes even only 2cm difference), you do notice the difference. Obviously the bigger the size difference the more effect it has, but even 2cm you can notice.
Hi Nate, I need some advice choosing between the Yes Standard vs Yes Greats.
Here’s the context: I’m an intermediate rider in the Midwest, mostly icy groomers. I’m looking for the best All-Mountain experience that will help me evolve at the park as well. I’m especially looking for pop off medium-sized kickers, and small side hits. Something smooth and fun to carve, comfortable and forgiving. Not likely to catch an edge in uneven terrain.
Which of these two boards do you recommend?
Thanks in advance,
Troy Winslow (Wisconsin)
Hi Troy
Thanks for your message.
I think both would treat you really well, but here’s some things to see if can help you to make your decision.
1. The Greats, IMO, is a little better for anything park related. Both will do the job there, but the greats would get my tick as the better board for the park, jumps, side hits etc
2. Both are really good in icy conditions, in my experience. If I had to choose one that was better over the other, I would say the Greats, but I wouldn’t take that into account as both are really good in that respect
3. I slightly prefer the Greats for carving (like proper carves). It’s got that little bit more of a camber dominant profile – and I just find I can rail carves a little harder on it. The asymmetry might help there too. But again, the Standard is pretty good for carving. There’s not a big difference, but my preference for carving would be the Greats.
4. The Standard is less likely to catch an edge. The Greats isn’t catchy by any means, but the Standard is a little more forgiving of skidded turns and a little more forgiving of errors in terms of catching an edge.
If you’re going to be seeing any significant powder, I think I would go Standard. Or if the edge-catching is a bigger priority than carving/park performance (again, I don’t find the Greats to be a catchy board, just more so than the Standard). But if you’re not going to be seeing significant powder and carving/park performance is more important, then I would be leaning Greats.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! One more question… you listed the Yes Greats and the Proto Slinger as both great freestyle boards. What does the Yes Greats have that the Proto Slinger can’t do? I’ve heard they’re both great all over the mountain… (except pow, of course)!
Hi Troy
The Proto Slinger is quite a bit softer than the Greats. It’s what I feel as 3.5/10 in terms of flex. It’s quite a different board to the Greats, IMO. Different shape – more traditional in terms of it’s width. And in terms of performance, it’s more buttery and better for jibs than the Greats, but not as good for big carves and not as stable at speed. For medium kickers and side hits, it’s awesome though. Not quite as good for bigger jumps as the Greats, but it’s good more pop than the Greats, IMO.
Even though it’s predominantly camber, it’s pretty hard to catch an edge on. More catch free than the Greats, IMO (and again, the Greats isn’t a catchy board). And in terms of carving, it’s pretty fun on shorter/sharper, slower carves, but not as good for bigger carves or higher speed carves, IMO.
So yeah, I think if you’re willing to sacrifice a bit of stability at speed for a bit more forgiveness and are OK with that softer flex, then it could definitely fit what your describing well. But certainly quite a different ride to the Greats.
Hi Nate,
been reading your reviews for a long time now and always love ’em. By far the most informative and consistent out there!
Currently struggling to find myself again on the hill after a few years away. I don’t really ride park, and these days with how much I can get away it’s mainly groomers and cruising the resort, hitting jumps etc and otherwise bombing and getting some nice carves. I don’t seek powder unless it’s there…blasphemous!
For that reason I wound up with a NS Ripsaw in 2018, having had a Yes Greats 2017 before that.
The Greats I loved at the time. Nimble and quick and I remember loving the asym (whether in my head or not!). I didn’t use it for Freestyle other than jumping about but I still enjoyed it. But I put on a lot of size and strength and physically outgrew it.
So I got something far heavier and more aggressive in the Ripsaw which, at the time, was amazing. But now, after a couple of years, having lost that size and strength, it suddenly feels far too hard to ride and enjoy consistently. It can be so much effort to turn and trying to slow down and chill at all, even to gaze at the scenery whilst riding slow with some mates, is more work than it should be.
I used to ride the Greats 2017 156 with Burton Cartel Re:Flex and Thirtytwo Lashed.
Now I ride the Ripsaw 159 with Rome DODs and Thirtytwo 3XDs. I feel that part of my issue is the sheer weight difference in the setup as well as the fact I lost weight myself, meaning the Ripsaw became even more work.
So now I’m thinking I want that perfect middle ground again. I’ll be keeping the boots and bindings but I want a board that is FUN and can be slowed down with, but also carves and holds an edge really well and can at least fly at a good old speed (the Ripsaw is super quick for a twin, but even anything close would be nice). Again, I’m primarily riding groomers.
FINALLY MY QUESTION:
Since the Yes Greats has reportedly changed a lot since my old one with the new Mid Bite tech and whatnot, I’ve considered trying it again. If it really holds that edge and carves as well as they say whilst still being a fun board to ride at any pace, I’m down.
But I also think the same of the Standard.
And I’m also considering the Capita Mercury.
Given everything I’ve said, moving back from an overly stiff and aggressive Ripsaw and yet still wanting something more than just middle of the road, would you recommend any of these three and if so what are the benefits I would have do you think?
I love the idea of getting an Asym again but no idea if it’s the old placebo effect!
Oh, and I’m an all round intermediate.
Massive thanks for reading all this and any help you can give!!
Cheers man,
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Ripsaw is pretty aggressive and quite stiff, so if you’ve lost weight and are looking to ride more casually at times now, I definitely get it. The Ripsaw wants you to ride it hard all the time and can be punishing if you want to be a bit more casual on it. I think you’re on the right track with the boards you’ve mentioned – getting a little more playful, but still something you can ride at speed and carve. The Greats is one of the better carvers for it’s flex and shape. Carves a little better than the Standard, IMO. There’s not a lot in it, but I put just over for carving – and it’s pretty good at speed too. I rate it 3.5/5 but borderline 4/5. Standard maybe just a touch better at speed, but they’re very close. Not quite as good at speed as the Ripsaw, for sure, but it’s never going to be when you’re shedding that much stiffness.
The Mercury is, IMO, just a little stiffer than the Greats and Standard. It’s what I would call 6.5/10 in terms of flex, so still certainly softer than the Ripsaw. But it’s good on a carve and good at speed. Again not Ripsaw speed, but it’s not all that far off. The Mercury is particularly light, so if lightness is a consideration, then that’s something to consider. It’s as good at riding slow or being playful as the Greats or Standard, IMO, but it will still be better in that respect than the Ripsaw.
I really like asym boards. And I’ve certainly also considered whether or not it’s a placebo effect, but it’s hard to say. I consistently find asym better for riding switch, so my instinct is that it’s more than just placebo.
Greats now definitely holds an edge better than the 2017 model and it’s my go to in my quiver for hard/icy conditions. It’s really good for those conditions – the Standard is also. The Mercury isn’t bad in that respect, but not as good as Greats/Standard, IMO.
Hope this helps
Oh and if you’d like a sizing opinion, happy to give one. Would just need your height, weight and boot size.
Hi Nate,
massive tha is for the reply there, really helpful!
I’m 5ft 8″, 175-182lbs generally and boot size US 10.
I feel like the Mercury may be that middle ground of what I’m looking for (good speed and carving but still possible to slow it down when needed and not super unforgiving, from what I read) and so am considering the 157. Do you think this would be about right for me?
Also, with the increased widths of the new Yes boards, what would you reccomend for those? Possibly a 154 for the Greats? What about the Standard?
Many thanks man,
Nick
Hi Nick
Yeah, I agree, the 157 is probably your best bet with the Mercury.
For the Greats I would say 154 for sure. For the Standard I would up it to the 156. Standard has a little less effective edge – and it’s also marginally narrower than the Greats, so I probably wouldn’t quite go down to the 153 for the Standard.
Hello, first off THANK YOU for doing what you do.
I am looking to replace my DOA with the Yes Standard. I am allmountain/freestyle always looking for natural features to spin off, and doing lots of flat ground butters, nose rolls, switch riding.
My question is which size youd recommend if I enjoy buttering quite a bit. Im 5’10, 190, size 12 boot.
I was debating the 159 vs the 162… should I go with the 162 so that my weight isnt too high and I dont over bend the board for butters? My DOA had lots of resistance and I could comfortably put my weight over the tail and not have it wash out.
Thanks again and I will be looking to purchase through your links if possible. Your awesome!
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I would be looking at the 159 for your specs and how you describe your riding. The Standard is a little easier to butter than the DOA, so I get your concern for overbending, but whilst the Standard is pretty buttery, it’s still not overall a soft board or anything – so there’s definitely some resistance to press against there still. For your specs and style I think 159 overall will be the better size. But if you could also let me know the size of your DOA? I’m guessing it’s either 158W or 161W? Unless you have the 2021 model, in which case maybe 159W? In any case, if you could let me know the size, then I can have a better think about how different it will be to butter versus your current board.
I had the 158W for the 2017 DOA. It was sad to let go of the DOA but from all your detailed responses it looks like the standard is going to be a blast for how I ride.
Im interested to see how the pop will compare between the boards, and how the Standard feels for edge to edge speed in the trees. I forsee them being very similar given my wide board before and my size 12 boots.
Thanks again for your response and all you do!
Thanks Joe. Yeah, I think 159 for sure for the Standard for you. And yeah probably very similar in terms of edge to edge speed in the trees, I would say. The Standard 159 is wider than the 158W DOA, but I found it nimble for how wide it is, and with 12s, I would predict a similar overall edge to edge speed to the 158W.
Hey Nate. Mate I love the reviews. I just read them for fun!
I was curious what you thought. I have a 156 2021 standard. Just wondering if that’s what you would recommend size wise. I’ve ridden it twice in spring conditions a mix of ice and spring corn in NZ last year. Just picked it up at the end of the season. I’m 76kg, size 9.5 us ions and 5’10. I ride a 158 custom Flying V and a 2011 159 trs c2btx and a 156 hovercraft split in japan. I felt like sizing down to the 153 was too much, as powder performance is important to me. But I keep looking at it and thinking dam it’s wide. But riding I didn’t notice any issues. The edge hold is amazing and turn initiation seemed on point. I think I’m over thinking the waist width issue, however the goodride guy was pretty uncomplimentary about it’s turning speed and performance in general. I bought it after reading your review and the number one ranking and am glad I did..
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message. Must be getting close to starting your season in NZ?!
Size-wise for the Standard, I would have being weighing up the 153 and 156. And between those size would have depended on how you were looking to ride it. If you wanted to ride predominantly park/freestyle and/or a lot of trees, then I would have been leaning 153. But if stability at speed, carving and float in powder were more important, then I would have been leaning 156.
For me I find the 156 just right – with fairly similar specs to you (6’0″, ~80kg, size 10 typically but sometimes 9.5, sometimes 10.5, depending on brand). I’ve never found it to be a particularly slow turner. Not like I’ve found with some other wider boards. I wouldn’t say it’s up there with the quickest turners that I’ve ridden, but far from being a slow turner or anything, from my experience. I would typically ride a board like the Standard at around 158/159 and found sizing down to 156 was enough to counter the width. I wouldn’t ride the 159 in the Standard, which I would with other similar boards that are narrower, but I didn’t feel I needed to size down anymore than to the 156. And I spend a fair bit of time riding trees, park/freestyle, as well as opening out on the groomers, getting into powder when available of course and laying down some good carves.
So yeah, long story short, I think that size is fine for you – it’s what I go with, and whilst you’re specs aren’t exactly mine, they’re pretty close and unless you’re predominantly using it for trees and/or park, I think 156 is the best size for you.
Hey Nate. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Mt Hutt opened yesterday and Cardrona I believe this weekend. Might need to get out the splitboard to escape the crowds this season is going to be busy.
I kind of went through the same thought experiment and came to the same conclusion about the 156.
Also from the 2 days riding I felt pretty happy with the turning speed. I might give you a midseason update.
Have a great summer.
Cheers from NZ.
Chris.
Hey Chris.
Yeah that’d be great to get a mid-season update. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
Would you be able to help me pick out a board? I’m a little stuck between the Yes Typo and the Yes Standard
I’m a 21 year old who hasn’t ridden in about 7-8 years, but from what I remember, I was about a beginner/intermediate rider (but closer to beginner than intermediate). I could ride pretty comfortably, but never learned to ride switch unfortunately.
I’m hoping to pick up a board that can do it all, but more resort focused. I also don’t want it to be too difficult in learning to ride comfortably again/switch, but something that I won’t grow out of too quickly and can still keep when as I get better.
My first choice would be the Typo, but given that I’m not able to find any in stock, I thought maybe the Standard would be a good alternative, but I’m open to any other boards you might suggest.
I’m about 5’7, 165lb and size 8.5-9 US boot
Thanks in advance!
Hi Des
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would definitely leaning Typo. The Standard isn’t an overly technical/difficult ride or anything, but will be a noticeably more difficult progression. And the Typo is something that you shouldn’t grow out of too fast. Also, in terms of sizing, the Typo is better for your specs, IMO. The Standard is quite wide for 8.5-9s, so you’d probably want to size down quite a bit in length to compensate for that.
Size-wise, I think the 155 Typo would be a really good size for you. For the Standard you’d want to size down to the 151, IMO. I think it would work in that size. But when you have to size down that much in length, you’re shaving off quite a bit of effective edge.
I would check out the following list, which I made specifically for those looking for a high-end beginner to low intermediate level board, that they won’t grow out of too soon:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
You’ll see the Typo is on the list.
Hope this helps.
Awesome thanks for the advice Nate! I accidentally posted this comment on your Typo review as well, so feel free to ignore that one!
You’re very welcome Des. Yeah saw the other one too, but didn’t have any info this one didn’t have, so I just deleted it, for tidiness.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to pick this up for the New Zealand winter this year to replace my ancient Nitro T1. I don’t spend much, if any time in the park but still want something a little playful for the rest of the mountain. We also very rarely get decent amounts of powder here and most of the time it’s groomed tracks and ice. Our choices for boards can be quite limited too.
Anyway I’m just worried about the size of the board, I’m 5’11, ~154lb, and wear size 11 boots. For some reason I always seem to size up with snowboard boots. Weight wise the 153 seems the best fit but I’m worried about boot overhang. Any suggestions or recommendations for other boards? I was also looking at a Capita Mercury.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
The Standard is a little wider than it looks, when just looking at the waist width, but still might be pushing it a little on the 153, in terms of overhang. The 153 will be around 265mm at the inserts, which in some cases you might be able to get away with with 11s, but it’s borderline. If you have low profile boots, binding angles +15/-15 or similar (a decent amount of angle on the back foot) and don’t carve too aggressively (i.e. carving deep, e.g. eurocarving), then you would likely be fine width-wise, but you’d probably want all of those things in place to get away with it.
The 156 is possibility. I wouldn’t typically recommend it with your weight, if your boot size was smaller. But given your boot size, then the 156 won’t be overly wide for you – and 156 at the right width isn’t a bad length, if you’re not doing a lot of freestyle riding. That said, if you feel like your feet are small for size 11, then that’s something else to consider – because it’s your feet that provide leverage to the edges. So when we’re talking about going too wide, it’s referring to too wide for your feet. Too narrow is in relation to boots (if that makes sense! – I can explain that further if it doesn’t make sense).
The Mercury is going to be narrower, even if you went to the 155 (and I wouldn’t go any longer than that for your specs for the Mercury). The 155 is 255 at the waist (versus 253 at the waist of the 153 Standard) but it’s only around 263mm at the inserts, so you’ve actually got less leeway. Between the Standard 153 and Mercury 155 (or 153), I would go Standard 153.
If you don’t get that much powder, I would also consider the YES Greats 154. I think that would be a really good size for you. It’s a little wider than the 153 Standard – it’s around 270mm at the inserts, which I would be pretty confident with with 11s, depending on the profile of your boots, binding angles and how aggressive you carve, but in this case you wouldn’t have to be as strict on those things as there’s more leeway.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the detailed reply, it really does help. That also makes sense regarding foot size vs shoe size, my feet are around 27cm-27.5cm in length and boots (Burton Photon Wides) roughly 33cm long.
Sounds like both boards are kind of out of the running but I’ll check out the YES Greats. I have also just noticed the Jones Mountain Twin comes in a 156W, would that be a good enough fit?
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike
I think ideally you’d be in smaller boots and go regular width with 27-27.5cm feet. But all feet are different, even when at the same length and sometimes you don’t fit in the boots that the mondo was designed for – based purely on foot size, I would have thought you’d get into a size 10 Burton boot. But like I say, feet are a bit strange and fit different. If you were in a smaller boot, the likes of the Mountain Twin 154 and Standard 153 would be ideal.
But given your boot size, I think the 156W would work. It’s a good length for you, IMO. It’s on the wider side for your foot size, so not ideal, but it’s not so wide that your feet will be swimming inside the edges, so I think that’s a good bet, and a safer bet, if you want to avoid boot drag. The Mountain Twin is a really nice versatile board too, than is really consistently good in pretty much any conditions and any type of riding, so it’s a solid all round choice, IMO.
Cheers Nate, I actually took my boots back to the store today to double check and they seem to think the 11 is a good size. My left foot is a little bigger and actually looks closer to 28cm. I’m probably somewhere between 10.5 and 11.
Anyway I’ve gone with the 156W Mountain Twin and it arrives in a few weeks. Thanks for the help mate!
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope the board 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 Nat, thanks for the awesome review. I’m 6’ (183cm) tall and 160lbs. Wearing a burton US size 9. My local store only has the standard in 156, wondering if that would work for me. I’m a intermediate trying to progress, currently riding a Jones frontier 159. Is the yes standard a better board for me? I’m trying to improve my carve and not doing any park.
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 could be doable for you – and probably the closest equivalent size to the 159 Frontier. So, if you felt like the 159 Frontier was about right size-wise, then 156 Standard would be your best bet. But if you felt like the 159 Frontier is a little big, then 153 is probably the better bet for the Standard. In saying all of that, I think the Frontier is a good option for what you’re describing (Intermediate trying to progress and not doing any park), so if you like the Frontier, then there’s no reason to change. If you feel like you want something else, then the Standard would certainly work too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! I do find the 159 frontier hard to turn sometimes, especially when I’m going to steeper slopes. Not sure if that’s me being lack of skills or the board being too long. I can’t find any Standard in 153 but I do find one in 151. That would be too short right?
Hi Peter
Yeah, unfortunately I think the 151 would be going too short.
Thanks Nate. I ended up finding a 153 on sale in my local store. I currently have the burton Genesis Bindings and the burton swath boots, wondering they are good match with the yes standard. I was planning to upgrade my boots to either burton Photon, or Vans Aura Pro. Do you have any recommendation for the boots? Thanks!
Hi Peter
Nice one on finding the 153 on sale! I think the Genesis and Swath match pretty well with the Standard, so if you didn’t want to change, they are going to work fine, IMO. If you wanted to get really picking, something a little stiffer would be ideal. Around 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be the ideal, IMO. I rate the Genesis 5/10 flex and the Swath also 5/10 flex. The Aura Pro also feel more like 5/10 flex to me, so don’t think that would be worth changing to, IMO, assuming your Swath are still in good condition? The Photon more like 7/10, so if you were going to make a change, I would be leaning towards them. But if you’re Swath are in good condition still, they’re not a major mismatch with the Standard or anything.
Hey Nate, what’s the difference between the Yes Basic, Yes Typo, and Yes Standard? I can’t really find the comparisons anywhere…
Hi Jay D
Thanks for your message.
The Basic and Typo are quite similar, but the main differences are:
– Typo has a 2-4-2 camrock profile versus the 4-4-4 camrock profile on the Basic – essentially means there is more rocker in the profile on the Basic than the Typo
– Small (5mm) setback stance on the Typo
– Sintered spec (kind of in between sintered and extruded) base on the Typo versus extruded base on the Basic
– The Typo is a little stiffer flexing than the Basic. It’s not massively stiffer, but it is a little stiffer
The Standard is different in a few more ways:
– 3-4-3 camber profile
– stiffer (6/10 versus 4.5/10 on the Typo and 4/10 on the Basic)
– Directional Volume Twin shape
– Sintered base (full sintered)
– Different core, different glass
– has mid-bite – and it is quite a bit wider than the Basic and Typo
– different effective edge (relative to overall length)
– different sidecut
– basically a lot of differences. Where the Basic and Typo are quite similar in a lot of aspects, the Standard is different in almost every one of those aspects
Hope this helps
What bindings do you recommend for the Yes Standard?
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
For the Standard, I would be looking at anything around 6/10 to 7/10 in terms of flex. My picks in those flex ranges are, in order:
6/10 flex
Union Strata
K2 Lien AT
Burton Cartel
Union Force
7/10 flex
Union Falcor
Flux XF
Burton Cartel X
Union Atlas
Salomon Highlander
I know that’s a good few options, but anything there would work well with the Standard, IMO. I have reviews on the site for all of those if you wanted to check out the relative strengths and weaknesses of each to see which might suit you best, but all should be a good match to the Standard, IMO
Hope this helps
Nate, which bindings would you put on a Yes the Greats: Now X Yes or Burton Cartel?
Hi Jay
I’d go Cartel personally. Just that I find it the better all round binding. Better board feel for buttering, similar response. Given that the Greats is a wider board – if you’re riding Medium bindings, then the X YES will give you a little more leverage on the edges, as it has a longer baseplate. So that’s definitely one plus of the X YES over the Cartel on this particular board. The X YES has better shock absorption, but the Cartel isn’t bad in that department. Both would match with the Greats, IMO, but I would personally go for the Cartel. If board feel isn’t that important to you, then the X YES is a good option too though.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! Would you give the Cartel the nod over the Now X Yes on the Standard as well? I ride a medium size.
Hi Jay
Yeah, same applies for the YES Standard for me. Again, if you’re not too fussy over board feel and you want that little bit more leverage, then that might sway you to the X YES. Personally I like to have good board feel and would prioritize it over that extra leverage. Also to note, that the leverage you get from a longer baseplate is relatively subtle, IMO, as that leverage predominantly comes from your feet.
Would the Strata mini discs work for the Standard?
Hi Jay
It works for the regular inserts – but not for the slam back inserts. So if you were wanting to setup on the slam back inserts, then you wouldn’t be able to with the Strata (or any binding with a mini-disc) unfortunately.
Hi Nate,
I used to ride a 2017 DOA for the past few yrs (5-6 times a yr) and this year I want to try something more lively and fun. Brought a used 2019 Capita OS Living and really like the feel compared to DOA. It is coming to season end and I want to get a new 2021 board for next season and I am looking at the YES Standard. What do you think of switching from Capita OS Living to YES Standard? or if you have other suggestions, please advise. thanks!
5’11, 180lb, intemediate rider.
Hi Wing
Thanks for your message.
It depends on how you want your riding to be. Between the OSL and the Standard, the Standard is a little stiffer, not quite as easy going/playful as the OSL. But still quite easy to butter, and certainly lively. But I would say that the OSL is more playful. If you were wanting a more playful ride or an equally playful ride, then there are other’s that might suit your needs better. But the Standard is certainly lively.
The Standard will be just as good for carving, jumps, spins, butters, and almost as good for riding switch. It will give you more stability at speed and be better in powder, IMO.
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your boot size, that would help to determine the best size.
Hope this helps
thanks for the comments! I kind of want more stability when I am at a higher speed. I found that the OSL is a little bit choppy when I get up to decent speed. My boot size is addias 10 with union force binding, thanks!
Hi Wing
The Standard should provide better stability at speed for you (from my experience). Still not as stable at speed as much stiffer boards, but if you didn’t want to go too much stiffer, but gain a little in terms of stability at speed, it’s a good way to go, IMO.
Size-wise, I would go 156 for the Standard with your specs.
Thanks so much for the review. Aside from the YES STANDARD, any other board I should look at?
Hi Wing
Given that it sounds like you don’t want anything too aggressive, but want a bit more stability at speed versus the OSL, I think the Standard is a really good option. You could also go Capita Mercury or Niche Story if you wanted something a little more aggressive, or something like the Assassin Pro or Niche Crux. But I think the Standard would be a good option for what you’re describing.
Hi Nate,
I am looking for a YES STANDARD right now. However, I can only locate a 153. Will it still be ok for my specs?
Hi Wing
I wouldn’t go as short as that in the Standard for your specs. The 156 is already sizing down for your specs (taking into account the width, it’s a good size down). So whilst I think it’s good to size down a little with this board with size 10s, taking into account width, going down to 153 would be sizing down too far – especially considering that the 153 is narrower too.
Thanks Nate!! I found a 156 =)
You’re very welcome Wing. Awesome that you found the 156!
I’m torn between the 153 and the 156. I’m 5’9, weigh 168 pounds, and my boot sizes are 9/9.5.
I usually do a little bit of everything but really enjoy powder and tree runs. What size do you recommend?
Hi Hec
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I would be leaning towards the 153. It’s a trade off, as the 156 will float better in powder for you, but the 153 will be better in trees. And just overall I think 153 would be preferable for everyday riding on groomers too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate.
Im intermediate rider.Jm riding powder and carving usually.Which one do you prefer forme.Jones MT or Yes Standart.
My second question which size ?
İm 6.0 , 190 lbs and Us size 11.5 .
Thanks you .
Hi Kerim
Thanks for your message.
There’s definitely not a wrong choice between those 2, based on what you’re describing. If I had to choose one for carving, I think I’d go Standard, but really very little in it. For powder, the Mountain Twin is a little better in it’s reference stance than the Standard, but the Standard has those slam back inserts which make it as good when you use those. If you didn’t think you would be bothered to shift your bindings back on a pow day, then I’d say the Mountain Twin in reference is a little better versus the Standard in reference for powder.
Size-wise, I’d say 159W for the MT and 159 for the Standard would be just right for your specs.
Hope this helps
Dear Nate,
First of all thanks for your reviews. I’ve had a crush on the Yes.Standard for a while now, since a friend of mine has it and always speaks wonders of it. I just found it on sale and was wondering what size to pick. I’m an atypical rider.. 6’6” around 211 lb and 10,5 foot size. Been riding most of my boards 160 (Rome Slash for example) and lately a skate banana 1,59 and I plan to leave it for the park and get a new deck to carve and hit jumps since the skate banana washes out terribly for me both in landings and carves. With all this, what size would you advice for me?? Im thinking 162.
I stay put for you comments, thanks in advance.
Cheers!
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for you for the Standard, I think it’s between 162 and 159. Probably leaning 162. The 162 and 159 are on the wide-side for your boots, but for your specs, I think you could ride up to a 165. With a board on the wider side like this, it’s a good idea to size down a bit. So I think going 162 is a size-down for you and gives you that longer size to complement your 159 Skate Banana. The reason I consider the 159 as well, is that it sounds like you’re used to something around 160, so compared to what you’re used to 162 is sizing up rather than down. So, if you think you’d prefer something more similar to what you’re used to, then 159 is certainly an option. Some things to consider:
– The 159 will be more agile, feel a little softer flexing and generally be more playful and nimble. Better for spins and boxes/rails, IMO
– The 162 will give you more stability at speed, better for landing big jumps, and give you more float in powder.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you Nate you are the boss!!
Im tilting towards the 162, but, just tried a Capita DOA 161w (half a cm narrower that the yes.Standard) and I was completely blown away, so I’ve to think it through but I will let you know what I end up doing. Yes is not a brand that I really know well and would love to give it a try.
Cheers!
You’re very welcome Jay. Look forward to hearing what you go with.
Dear Nate,
Ended up getting my own DOA and I’m enjoying a lot. It is really letting me unlock aspects of my riding that the skate banana couldn’t. I deffinetly keep Yes. As a brand to try in the future tho.
Thank you so much for your attention and time.
Cheers!
Hi Jay
Thanks for the update. Awesome that you got your new board and that you’re enjoying it!
Hey Nate,
5′ 9″, 155 lbs, boot size 9.5-10 depending on company, been riding for 20+ years, but only get 5-10 days max a season. I’d say I’m advanced at best, no expert here. Was looking at YES. Standard vs. PYL, but can’t make up my mind. From the west coast, living on the east coast, so hit up what I can in WV and PA, but visit my brother in Bend, OR and hit Mt. Bachelor about once a year on top of maybe one other trip like Tahoe with wife’s family.
Search for powder wherever I can, but my destinations may not deliver enough of it to warrant the PYL. Stuck between what I’d like (PYL) and what I think I should get (Standard) for a one-board quiver. Any thoughts/insight or clarifying questions that could help?
Finally, want to get all new gear (it’s been ~10 years). So would be curious of thoughts on bindings and boots to compliment whichever board you’d recommend.
Thanks in advance, dude!
Charlie
Hi Charlie
Thanks for your message.
If you think you’d prefer your board to be closer to medium flexing and if you ride some freestyle stuff – riding switch, sidehits/jumps and/or buttering and/or park, then I think the Standard is your best bet. If you’re not getting that much powder, the Standard can certainly handle powder pretty well too, particularly if you set it back into the slam back inserts.
But if you’d prefer or are good with medium-stiff flex, ride one-direction pretty much exclusively and don’t really do park and are an advanced rider, then I would be leaning PYL, even if you don’t see that much powder.
Size-wise, for the PYL I think 156 would be perfect.
For the Standard, I think 153 would be the better bet. It’s a wider board and something I would size down for.
To match the Standard I would be looking at boots and bindings around 6/10 to 7/10 in terms of flex. Some options:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
For the PYL I’d be looking more like 7/10 to 9/10 in terms of flex. Some options:
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
Hope this helps
Nate – You’re a champ. Thanks for putting in the time and giving such a great answer. With your info, looks like it’s up to me now. I’ll message again once I’ve decided and let you know my rationale. Thanks again, dude.
Best, Charlie
You’re very welcome Charlie. Looking forward to hearing what you go with.
Hi Nate, so I ended up going for the 156 but I have about a 1.25 inch overhang on my heel side even moving my bindings as much as possible. I’m worried it could be a problem laying down a hard carve. Is that too much or am I just overthinking it? Thanks.
Hi Michael
I personally haven’t had heel drag issues going up to 1.2″ in heel overhang. Don’t remember trying as much as 1.25″ so I’m not sure. Just to make sure, are you measuring that overhang from the outside of the metal edge (as opposed to the edge of the top sheet)? Because it’s that metal edge that really matters. If so, it’s probably more than ideal but might be fine. Hard to say for sure. Also, how much toe overhang do you have out of curiosity? – I know you can’t get the boot further forward at this point. And is this with your 11.5 Burtons or 11 Adidas boots?
That’s with some 11 vans, the 11 adidas are slightly less. Measuring from the metal. I barely have any overhang at all toe side, less than a cm, which is good so I wish I could bump up the bindings more.
Hi Michael
Thanks for the details. Yeah it’s a shame you can’t bump up the bindings any more, because total overhang sounds like it’s in a really good range. What bindings and what size do you have?
Large. So I figured out if I pair it with union bindings I can adjust the heel cup, which the Burton doesn’t have, to push the boot forward just a tad and even it out and it should be perfect.
Hi Michael.
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah with Burton there’s no heel cup adjustment and even their large bindings tend to not have that long a baseplate/footbed. Union does allow you to adjust the heel cup, so yeah, if you’re happy to change up your bindings, I think that would be a good way to go.
Hi Nate,
I’m relatively new to Snowboarding and this is my 2nd season. I’m 5’11, size 10.5 (10 in Adidas ADV) 200-205lbs. I had a GNU Hyak 160cm which I struggled to turn with and recently bought a 158cm Yes Typo after reading your review. I have to say that my confidence quickly grew and I am now on graduating to blue runs. However, I still find it a little long as while its not super difficult to turn, there are times I wished I could turn faster.
So I’m now considering the Yes Standard 153cm or the Never Summer Snowtrooper 154cm – taking off 3-5cm as a beginner. (both 253mm width which is just nice for my boots).
1. Are those too short or should I consider the 156 Standard / 156 Snowtrooper? my aim is to build confidence and progress faster so as I can enjoy the mountain.
2. between the NS Snowtrooper and standard, which would you recommend?
Thank you.
Hi Gabriel
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the Snowtrooper is the better option, and a really good option for a high-end beginner, IMO. Size-wise, though, I would go 156. 156 is already taking off 5cm, IMO, so I wouldn’t go shorter than that. The width on the Snowtrooper 156, with 10s, should be a really good fit too.
The Standard is a little more advanced and whilst going down to 153 will make it easier to handle, I’d still be leaning Snowtrooper 156. Also to note, that the Standard 153 is still wider than the Snowtrooper 156. It’s wider at the inserts versus the waist than something like the snowtrooper, so overall wider. I would actually sooner go 155 Typo before 153 Standard for what you’re describing. I think you could work the 153 Standard, but given your goals, I would say 155 Typo or 156 Snowtrooper. And I would be leaning 156 Snowtrooper in this case, particular since you already have the Typo in 158.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate,
Thanks for your quick response and appreciate your advice.
I managed to let go my Typo to a buddy and will look at the NS Snowtrooper.
Your reviews help a lot and wished I knew about your site before I got my gears.
You’re very welcome Gabriel. Happy riding!
HI Nate,
Firstly, thank you for your reviews and advice as it helped my progression greatly. I can say your reviews are accurate and that means a lot of many of us at the crossroads of investing in a board.
As you recall, I was just good beginner weeks ago when I struggle with my 160cm GNU Hyak and got better with the Yes Typo 158cm (which I deemed a little long, then). Instead of the NS Snowtrooper, I got the Yes Standard and boy, in a matter of weeks, I was able to build the confidence and ride down blacks. The standard’s firmness helped a lot especially when on flatter and bumpier terrains as it just pave the way and never once caught an edge.
Im working on moguls now and the 153cm is easy to turn & now I’m dreading if I should have gotten a size larger. I went back to my old GNU 160cm the other day and could ride them easily – thought they were too soft and in many instances, caught an edge where the standard didn’t.
Anyways, to those, like me, who struggled to find the right board, if you are a good beginner and looking to progress, this board is absolutely a great investment. Im 5’11 and 195lbs (lost some lbs with all those weeks practice) and I think a size larger than 153 will still be manageable.
Just my 2 cents back to the community from my experience and your guidance as i wished I had come across your site before my first board purchase.
(I’m now looking at some carve boards, hope you can review the Jones Hovercraft or Ultracraft. ; ) cheers!
Hi Gabriel
Thanks for your feedback/insight. Much appreciated. Happy riding!
Hey man, so looking at the yes standard. This will be a first board for me and I’m a beginner but I’m willing to put in the effort to get it done. I’m torn between 159 and 162. I’m 220 pounds but trying to get under 200 by summer and I’m an 11 boot. Thoughts on size for my first board. I want to kinda do it all but I’m not gonna hit some crazy huge jumps. Just some smaller stuff. Thanks.
Hi Ricky
Thanks for your message.
Not something I would typically recommend for a beginner, but if you do go for this one, I think the 159 is your best bet for sure. Even as an advanced rider I would say 159 for your specs assuming around 200lbs. At 220lbs, maybe the 162, but as a beginner, I would go 159. Which might work out well for you, if you start out 220 on the 159 and it feels softer than it would at 200lbs. Then once you loose that weight you’ll hopefully be at a more advanced level where the 159 won’t become too much board, if that makes sense. So whilst, I think it’s not the ideal choice as a beginner board, if you’re set on it, it could work out, but I would definitely go 159.
Hope this helps
Awesome, helpful reviews!
I am looking to get a new all-mountain board because I am over powering the softer board I currently have. I have been stuck between a few different boards, but it seems like the Yes. Standard might be best. I am an upper-intermediate level rider that likes to do a bit of everything, but prefer going fast and hitting natural jumps than park riding. I ride mainly on the East Coast in PA, NY where it is pretty icy and sometimes go out West. I am 6’1, 195lbs, and size 12 Burton boot.
Do you think the Standard would be the right choice, and would a 159cm be a good size?
Thank you!
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the Standard would work for what you’re describing for sure. Just so long as you’re not expecting anything super stiff or anything. It’s a 6/10 flexing board, IMO, so just at the stiffer side of medium. Definitely a good do-it-all board and I think it will suit what you’re describing, just so long as you’re not expecting anything super stiff.
Size-wise, I think it’s a weight up between the 159 and 162. I think I would be leaning 159, but 162 certainly wouldn’t be wrong for you either. 162 would give you more stability at speed and better float in powder. The 159 more maneuverable, better for trees, a little more forgiving when riding slower and better for butters and jumps (unless you’re hitting really big jumps).
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for the advice. Went ahead and ordered the 159!
Love the site and all the reviews!
You’re very welcome Nick. Thanks for visiting the site. Hope the board 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. Happy riding!
Hey Nate, I was thinking about getting a freeride board but I don’t think I use it enough for Bowls, trees, and Powder, so I’m looking for a more aggressive and stiffer all mountain board then the two all mountain medium flex boards that I own ( 2019 Proto 2 154, 2019 Outerspace Living 154) that can do Powder, tree runs and bowls when I go out to Colorado which is about 10 days a year. My riding style is I love to Carve on groomers ,basic butters and jumps off small side hits, but when I go to bigger resorts I want to be able to ride in bowls, trees and Powder. I don’t really bomb it flat base but I do want to be able to carve at higher speeds. I’m 5’9” 175, size 8 boot, I currently have the adidas sambas which getting adidas was a mistake because they leave smaller footprint, so I got the thirty two tm2s on the way. Will the 153 be suitable for me? I do want something quick edge to edge, and want to be able to ride slow also. I had the warpig 148 and I hated it because it was too wide for my size 8 and with the adidas sambas not helping it either. Will this board suit my needs, I also was looking into the Capita Mercury 155 too. Thanks again for all your content and input, its sooo helpful.
Hi Peter
The Standard is a little stiffer than the 2 boards you have currently, but not massively so. I’d say the Standard feels like a 6/10, with the PT2 and OSL feeling more like 5/10. So if you want to just go subtly stiffer, then it’s a good choice. Does also give you a bit more in powder (particularly so, if you put it in the slam back inserts). And a little more at speed too. So definitely a subtle improvement in those areas.
I think length-wise going longer than 153 would be ideal, but since the board is going to be very wide in the 156 for your feet, then the 153 probably does make more sense. The 153 is still going to be wider than your current boards, but sizing down should help being back that maneuverability for trees/riding slow. For reference, the 153 is probably around 265mm at the inserts versus the PT2 154, which is more like 258-259mm and the OSL 154 more like 258-259mm as well.
Having a narrower waist does help with maneuverability as well though, so with the narrower waist and coupled with the narrow width at inserts compared to the 148 Warpig, it’s overall definitely more suitable for your foot size than the Warpig – even with going that much shorter, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Nate – great reviews, much appreciated. Really deciding between a few boards: Standard, ejack knife, assassin pro, and the Mercury (no need to go over that one again since it’s in here 10 times). Do a lot of everything except park. Bombing, tons of trees, side hits, love powder obviously. Been on a skeleton key but when the conditions aren’t perfect it’s really not enjoyable. Also can’t stand the channel. Looking for something that takes care of those harder packed days that I can still go hard with minimal chatter and through the trees with confidence. Thanks man.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be leaning Standard or Ejack Knife – the better bets in hard conditions and good in trees and powder. The Assassin Pro everything except powder. Still not bad in powder but not quite as good. Mercury the least agile at slow speed of that lot, IMO, so the trees thing not ideal. Really good in trees when there’s powder. Something about the Mercury it becomes more agile in powder than in non-powder conditions (more so than other boards).
Ejack versus Standard. Ejack a little better at bombing, a little better for powder. Standard better for side hits, riding switch etc. Getting the sizing right also important, but yeah assuming good sizing, I think I’d be weighing up those 2.
Hope this helps
I’m 5 10 180 11.5 in my Burton’s, 11 in my adidas. So really between the 156 and 159 standard. Don’t really have a choice with the ejack as I’d probably have to go 159w. I know the 156 would maybe be more fun and the 159 might be more stable but maybe not quite as nimble as I’d like
Hi Michael
I would be leaning 156 for the Standard. 159 definitely doable and would be more stable, but overall, I would be leaning 156 for your specs. You would sacrifice some for speed and powder but better for trees and sidehits. So it would definitely be a matter of which you wanted to optimize more.
The Ejack Knife 159W is actually a little narrower overall than the 159 Standard. The Standard 159 is roughly 275mm wide at the inserts versus the the 159W Ejack Knife which would be around 270mm at the inserts roughly. So, it is a little narrower, but still certainly wide enough for your boots. I think it’s a good width for your sized boots and the length works too. Again, you would be looking still at it being less nimble than the 156 Standard, but it’s kind of in between the 159 Standard and 156 Standard, size-wise. Still closer to the 159 Standard than the 156 Standard – and also a little stiffer. But just wanted to put that out there, because I think the 159W Ejack Knife is definitely a doable size for you. But so are the 156 and 159 Standard – with the stated pros and cons of each mentioned above.
Ordered the 156 Standard actually right before I read this. Went to a local board shop and they only had the 159 and I laid the 159 mercury over top of it and noticed the standard was a good bit wider at the inserts so it gave me confidence to go with the 156. Really appreciate all the help!
You’re very welcome Michael. And awesome that you’ve got your board ordered now. 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! I found this board on sale. Thou only in 156. I am 184cm an weigh about 80-85kg. Size on boots 9.
Last season i rode a 158 nitro beast but i didnt have too much fun on it (lol). Would you say 156 on the standard is good or should i size down on the board? Best regards, Albert
Hi Albert
Thanks for your message.
Typically for your specs, I’d say 158-160 for an all-mountain board, assuming a relatively advanced skill level. However, with size 9s on the Standard I think sizing down to the 156 is a good idea. It’s a little wider of a board, and sizing down helps. I’m similar specs – 183cm, 80kg, size 10 or 9.5 boots and I really like the Standard in 156, though I would typically ride/prefer 157-159 for all-mountain boards. So I think for this particular board, the 156 should be just right.
The Beast is a considerably stiffer/more aggressive ride (from what I’ve heard of it – it’s not a board I’ve ridden yet). So even in the same size, the Standard would be a more easy going ride. I imagine it’s the kind of board that you would want to always be driving hard and always being on your game on. Doesn’t strike me as a board with a lot of forgiveness. The Standard is like super soft/playful or anything, but it’s what I would consider right in the middle of playful/aggressive, if that makes sense. It’s got some forgiveness to it, but you can still bomb/lean into carves when you want to.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, your review on boot sizing really helped me pick the pair I own now, and I’ve been scrolling through your reviews since! Im after some trusted advise in regards to picking the right first board if you can help please.
I’m at an intermediate level of riding. Enjoy resorting, carving and side jumps along the way with occasional off piste. Not really into park, although I want to start learning switch and 180s in the near future (Freestyle purposes).
Height is 5ft 5, weight 67kg and boot size 8 UK.
I’m torn between the yes standard and mercury.. both seem like great boards, although unsure what one would suite me best for the description I’ve provided and what size to choose!
Any help would be much appreciated!
Many thanks
Kye
Hi Kye
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be leaning towards the Standard based on what you’re describing. Both would certainly work for everything you’ve said there, but I think as a first board, the Standard would just be that little bit more suitable, even if you’re already at that intermediate level – and also subtly better, IMO for switch/180s.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 151 Standard. I think that would be spot on. You could ride the 149 too – and that would be more freestyle friendly but if you’re not going in the park, I think the 151 is the better size.
If you went Mercury it would be 153, which would definitely work, but combination of length and width, it’s on the bigger end of what would work for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Really good review – I’m looking to purchase the Yes Standard now. Quick question from me, I’m 6’2″ at 180 lbs with 10.5 size boots. Would you recommend the 156 or 159 size board?
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Tight call between those 2 sizes for you. 156 is certainly sizing down for your specs, but being on the wider side for your boots, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just whether it’s sizing down too much. Even the 159 is a small size down, but it’s also wider still, so it’s whether that’s enough of a size down. I think it comes down to how you would be riding this board. I really like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs (when I last rode this board), size 10 boots) but the way I like to ride this board is “do-it-all” – riding trees, butters, park as well as carving, bombing and just cruising. But I think I would be leaning on an all-mountain-freestyle use of the board, and valuing maneuverability a little more than stability at speed.
I think if you predominantly wanted to carve and bomb, with less emphasis on freestyle stuff/trees, then I would be looking at the 159. If you value maneuverability and freestyle a little more, then I think the 156 would be the better bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate – that makes sense. I’m an intermediate rider looking to foray into butters, jumps and park this season. Seems like the 156 is the way to go for me.
Thanks for the quick reply and valuable advice! Hope you have a great season 🙂
You’re very welcome Ken. Hope you have an awesome season too!
Your site is awesome. I think I have spent about 10 hours reading reviews over the last year. Many thanks!
I am 51, 195lbs, 5’10”, boot size US 8.5. I mostly just ride groomers these days. But occasionally might run through the park or have a pow day. I have Burton step ons because my kids make fun of me when I stop to strap in (harsh) which happens a lot because the hills are short around here. I’m probably a level 6 intermediate according to your scale.
Lots of icy conditions in my neighbourhood.
Currently I’m riding a very old Ride 156 from when I was like 20lbs lighter.
This seems like a decent board for me. Do you think there is any better choice? And would you recommend the 156 length of this board. I’m thinking about the 159 cause … well … weight fluctuates.
Hi Jacques
Thanks for your message.
My biggest concern with going with the Standard, particularly in the 159, is the width. Everything else about it I think works well for what you’re describing. I think purely on height/weight/ability/how you ride, something around 159 makes sense. But with the Standard 159 being rather wide for 8.5s, I would be inclined to size down to the 156. If you wanted to step up to a 159, then I would go for a narrower board. I think this would work in the 156, but I wouldn’t be as confident to say the same for the 159.
There are certainly other options that would work for you. Let me know and I would be happy to provide some other options, if you think you’d prefer to go longer/narrower.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I appreciate the great comparisons of boards on your site! I’m looking at the Yes Standard right now as my do-it-all board. As a 5’9, 185 lb., size 10 shoe, mid-to-upper intermediate rider, I’m worried that the 156 is going to be too wide for me, but the 153 will be too small for me.
As a fellow size 10 shoe who rode the 156, did you experience any issues with the width of the board?
The other board I’m looking at is the Capita Mercury, which I feel might be not be forgiving enough/comfortable enough for my skill level. Do you have any advice between the two for someone in my position?
Thanks,
Josh
Hi Josh
Thanks for your message.
I really liked the 156 and had no issues with the width. And I usually really don’t like wider boards. I don’t typically like anything over around 265mm at the insets. The 156 is 270mm at inserts. There’s a couple of reason’s why the width wasn’t an issue in this case. Firstly, because 156 is a length that’s sizing down for me. Typically for an all-mountain board I would ride 157- 160. The other reason is that the waist isn’t overly wide – width at inserts is probably the most important factor, but a narrower waist does seem to help with maneuverability too, irrespective of the width at inserts.
For reference I am 6’0″ with size 10 boots and was 185lbs when I last rode the YES Standard.
I think you would be fine on the 156 and that’s the size I would recommend for you. I think the 153 would be going too small.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I could get my hands on the Yes Standard board for a decent price and I’m thinking of buying it but I’d like to get your opinion if this is suitable board for me. I’d say I’m on level 5ish on your skill level chart (solid on blue, somewhat struggling but haven’t died on black runs, occasional pow runs). I’m looking for an all-mountain board that’s not too catchy or too stiff but would still have a good edge control on icy slopes. I also would like to start riding more powder so the board should have a decent float.
I’m 183cm (6’0), 80kg (175lbs) and ride EU45 (US12) Burton Ruler boots. Which size would fit me best? I was looking at the 156 or 159. Also do you think the Standard could be too much of a board for a low-intermediate level rider?
Cheers Mikko
Hi Mikko
Thanks for your message.
Definitely fits this description well, IMO.
In terms of float. It’s pretty good when centered – I’d say 3/5. And then when in the slam back inserts it would ride a good bit easier in pow. So, I think it would depend on how willing you were to move your bindings back for powder days. Some people don’t like the idea of having to setup their bindings different for a pow day, but if you were good with that, then I think you will find it good for powder days.
Size-wise, it’s a tough call between the 2 in terms of length, but I would be leaning towards the 159. I like the 156 (I have similar specs to you), but for me, with 10s, the 156 is wider than I would normally ride – it’s also shorter than I would normally ride for an all-mountain board, but I like to size down a bit if it’s a little wide. If I had size 12s I would go 159. Also, the 156 might be pushing it in terms of being too narrow for 12s.
That’s a tough one. It’s certainly not an overly technical or stiff ride. It’s what I would say is “solid” intermediate and up. Certainly don’t need to be high-end intermediate to ride it, IMO. For low-intermediate, it’s hard to say.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate for your detailed answer!
I also had my eye on the Yes Hybrid, so could you advise how does the Hybrid compare to the Standard? Do you think the Hybrid could be a good option for me and if so what size would you recommend based on what I described earlier?
Thanks again
Hi Mikko
The Hybrid is a little more technical. They’re both a very similar flex, IMO, as far as I can tell the same. The Hybrid has less rocker tip and tail though, so it’s more camber dominant, which can make it catchier. I didn’t find it catchy at all, but that’s something to keep in mind. Also, note that it’s quite directional, so if you were wanting to ride switch (or take off/land switch for 180s and the likes) it’s less suitable than something like the Standard. It is better in powder though.
Also, the Hybrid is quite wide, so you wouldn’t have any issues width-wise. I think the 157 would work well for your specs. So, size-wise, I think it’s a good fit (in the 157), the only question mark really is around the reduced rocker (mostly because you were concerned about the Standard for low-intermediate and the Hybrid is that little bit more advanced) and whether you were wanting to ride switch/do tricks etc
Hi Nate!
Can you help me? I want to get a Yes standard board. Im 5.10 ft , weigh 143 lbs with a size 9 shoe. My binding angles are 15 and -15 degrees. Im an advanced aggresive rider. Should i buy the yes 149 or the 151 board?
Love your work, thank you.
Hi Jurij
Thanks for your message.
Those are the sizes I would be debating for for you, too. But I would be leaning towards 151 for you, given that you’re an advanced aggressive rider. If you were more intermediate or less aggressive, then I’d give the 149 more consideration but in your case I’d go 151.
Hope this helps with your decision
How does the yes standard compare to the capita mercury and ride superpig? My boot size is actually 9.5. Not 9 as i said before.
Hi Jurij
I haven’t ridden the Superpig, but on paper it looks more like a freeride board – and also a short wide. So quite a different ride compared the Standard and Mercury (which I categorize as all-mountain). The Superpig has a good bit of taper, looks to be stiffer and is 265mm at the waist on the 151 model. If you were to look at something like that, I would say go down to at least 148 (142 would be getting too small, but if there was like a 146 or something might be suitable).
The Standard versus Mercury. The Mercury is subtly stiffer than the Standard and is a little “more board” if that makes sense. It’s a little better for hard carves (IMO) but not quite as good for jumps/spins/riding switch and not as buttery. For speed and powder they’re similar – but if I had to choose one for out and out speed, it would be the Mercury. The Mercury is a slightly more aggressive rider.
The smallest size of the Mercury (153), would be a bigger overall feel vs the 151 Standard. Not only is a little longer but subtly wider too, and wider at the waist. Around 261-262mm at inserts (versus around 259, 260 on the 151 Standard) and 253mm at waist versus 248mm at waist on the Standard.
With 9.5s, it’s more doable than with 9s. And the 151 for the Standard is even more attractive versus the 149 Standard.
If you want something a little more aggressive than the Standard and don’t mind going a bit bigger to get it, and are willing to sacrifice a little in maneuverability, particularly at slower speeds, then the Mercury 153 in option.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate
Have been back and forward reading your reviews and the comments over the last few weeks and still struggling to make my decision so just though I would jump in and ask your opinion…
I am 186cm, 93kg and Ride Lasso size 11US boot (foot 28cm)
Upgrading my gear for first time in about 10 yrs I am tossing up between the YES PYL 160W and the YES Standard 159 or 162
Based in NZ, used to ride a lot but have 2 young kids now so only getting up a handful of days a year. In a good year one of those days is back country heli-boarding or a trip to canada/japan. Rest of the time is NZ resort, off piste and side country if there is soft snow, no park. Try to ride switch and hit off stuff when there is no fresh.
Also struggling with the binding decision because its not something I have paid much attention to in the past, for some reason leaning towards the union atlas at the mo, but also considering union strata, force & rome crux (force and crux quite a bit cheaper). Burton cartels are available too
Current board is a 158 burton supermodel (which is too small for me now) and bindings Union Contact pro
appreciate your thoughts.
cheers
Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Both could certainly work for what you’re describing. Some things below to consider that will hopefully help with your decision:
The PYL is better in powder and big mountain kind of stuff, so going to be better for your heli-boarding trips and Japan if you’re getting good powder. And overall better for that side-country stuff. Standard is better for riding switch/side hits. My instinct is that it sounds like you’re leaning more towards having the better sidecountry/backcountry performance over the side hits stuff? If that’s the case, then I would be leaning PYL.
Standard can still do that stuff pretty well, but not to the same extent as the PYL. The PYL too, whilst not as good as the Standard for side hits/switch/freestyle in general, isn’t something that you can’t do that stuff with. For a freeride board, it’s pretty good there.
Another thing to consider is flex. The PYL is stiffer – by my feel around 7.5/10 – than the Standard (6/10 flex feel). I haven’t ridden the Supermodel, but from what I can find out it sounds like it would be closer in flex to the Standard than the PYL. I don’t think you’d loose much in terms of powder with the Standard vs the Supermodel. Though the Supermodel certainly more suited to powder than Standard in some ways (being more directional, tapered etc), the Supermodel is traditional camber and the Standard has some rocker in there. Centered, I don’t think the Standard would be as good in powder as the Supermodel, but if you put in the slam back inserts, I’d say it would be relatively similar. Having not ridden the Supermodel, I couldn’t say for sure, but that would be my guess.
Apart from being stiffer, the PYL is otherwise more similar to the Supermodel (though still not that similar) in terms of taper, setback, shape.
In terms of bindings, I would def go stiffer for either board you go with, than the Contact Pros. Which would be best will depend on the board you end up going with. If you go with the Standard, then something like the Strata, Force or Cartel’s would be a good bet. If PYL, then I would go Atlas or Falcor, if going Union. The new Cartel X or last season’s Genesis X, if going Burton. Some other options in the following list that would go well with the PYL, IMO:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Don’t know what you’d have available in NZ from there, but from what you’ve mentioned I would say Atlas for PYL and either Strata, Force or Cartel for Standard. Could do Atlas for Standard as well, but I’d be leaning towards the others.
Size-wise for the Standard, I would be leaning towards the 159. Not a lot longer than your supermodel, but it’s a good bit wider. And going 162, you’re going to get something quite wide for your boots, and longer. I think the 159 would work well for you. For the PYL I agree with the 160W size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome thanks Nate, appreciate the advice
You’re very welcome Paul. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Your assessments are so thorough and spot on. Thanks for the hard work.
Looking for some quick advice, I’m caught between sizes. My specs:
46 years old
5’8” 160lbs
Solid intermediate rider
Size 9 Burton Swath Step on system
Ride about 20 times a year.
Currently own a 2016 155cm Typo
I do find the stance width a little wide, but love the edge to edge transition and forgiveness of the Typo. I do find the base a little slow.
Thinking 151 vs 153 Standard as an upgrade.
Thoughts?
Thanks and looking forward to your input.
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I think the 153 would be your best bet. Because of the width of it, I would certainly size down a little, but I thinking sizing down to the 153 is enough. I think that would be a really good size for you for the Standard.
The base on the Standard isn’t super fast, but it is faster than the Typo, so long as you keep it waxed. The Typo has a sintered “spec” base which is basically in between an extruded and sintered base – and the Standard has a sintered “true” base, which is a sintered base, so a bit more speed there vs the Typo, assuming you keep it properly waxed.
The Standard isn’t as quick/easy edge to edge as the Typo, but the Typo is super fast/easy in that sense. The Standard is still pretty good – so long as you size down a little, which you would be with the 153, though. The Typo is just particularly quick/easy in that area. The Standard also not quite as forgiving, but it’s still certainly not ultra-aggressive/rigid or anything either. Not quite as easy to butter as the Typo, but still pretty easy to butter.
You do an upgrade in a number of areas though. Better for carving, better at speed and just a springier/snappier feel – a bit more personality/x-factor vs the Typo. Better for jumps and powder too, IMO. So definitely an upgrade overall, with different strengths/weaknesses.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Looks like the Standard has many boxes ticked for me.
I happened to notice Yes is bringing out a 153 in the Hybrid. I’ve heard it’s excellent for cruising the mountain and carving.
Possibly an even better option than the Standard?
Thanks again.
Hi Mike
I really liked the Hybrid and was glad to see them bring out the 153 size. I felt it needed a smaller size. There were a lot of people I had interested in it, that would have been suitable for it, if not for the 157 being too big for them.
I rate the Hybrid as just that little bit better in terms of carving. But pretty close. Definitely better in powder and definitely not as good for riding switch. Note thought that even though the Standard is a little wider than the average board, that the Hybrid is considerably wider. At the inserts the following widths at inserts are (estimated):
– Standard 153: 263-264mm at back and front inserts (253mm waist width)
– Hybrid 153: 271-272mm at back insert and 277-278mm at front insert
That extra width is great for float in powder, but can make things slower edge to edge. Going from the Typo 155, with width at inserts of 259mm, you’re going quite a bit wider there. I didn’t find the Hybrid slow edge-to-edge (and I rode the 157, which is even wider (though I did ride it with 10s)).
So yeah, if you’re not really riding switch and see a bit of powder, then I would be leaning towards Hybrid, if you think that width wouldn’t be too much of an adjustment. Otherwise, I would go with the Standard.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Your website is very useful 🙂
I’m also thinking of buying the Standard 149. I’m 5’4”, 123 lbs with US 7 size boots (the Burton boots length are 28cm). I ride 50-60% groomers (carving + a bit ground tricks), 30-40% pows and trees and only 0-10% park
Is the board too big for me? If it’s too big, will it be worth trading off slower edge-to-edge for lesser overhangs and more stability?
I saw you did recommended Standard 149 for a guy just about my size (on March 23, 2018), but he was on US 7.5 boots, and you recommended Yes Hel Yes 146 for another woman (on November 9, 2019). Not sure which would be the best option for me.
Thanks!
Hi Kevin
Generally speaking I would say something around 147,148 for your specs. So not far off with the 149. And because they’re on the wider side for 7s, even on the 149, it’s on the bigger side for your specs, IMO. But, if you’re used to riding boards longer than 149, then it’s definitely an option.
Whether it’s worth the trade off to go for the wider width of this board, which is the biggest thing really, IMO, for you as 149 would work for length, depends really on what you value more. If you’re looking to really carve deep and bomb, then having that lesser overhang and stability might be worth it. But it would be that much more effort to get the board moving edge to edge – so not as good for riding trees or other tight spaces. You get the bonus of a wider landing platform for landing jumps too, but you trade off some agility for setups too. And one of the biggest bonuses of having that extra width is for the extra surface area for float in powder.
If you feel you wanted the board more nimble, you could look at the Hel Yes too – even the 149, though I think the 146 would also be a good size for you.
So yeah, 149 Standard certainly doable, depending on how you aggressive you’re looking to carve and how much you’re willing to give up a little agility. 149 isn’t like super long for you or anything, but just because it will be on the wide side for 7s, it’s that combination of length and width that makes on the bigger side for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate for the answer. It does help a lot especially on the tradeoffs part.
I’m still more inclined towards the Standard 149 (vs Hel Yes) because I feel that it’s easier to minimize the agility tradeoff (e.g. by adjusting bindings – forward lean or heel strap position, using stiffer ones, or just riding slower in tight trees) rather than to minimize tradeoffs from foot drags, stability or floats if I were to use Hel Yes. Though, I think these differences would be minor as these boards are very similar. Overall, I think the Standard has more “limit” if I am to push and progress on my skills too.
Not sure if the rationale above make sense to you (would love to get your opinion on this)
Also, given that I want to minimize this agility tradeoff, which bindings would you recommend? I’m thinking the Cartels might work because of its stiffness and adjustability. Any other options? (e.g. the new Cartel X, Union Atlas, …).
Btw, I do not plan to change my boots (Burton Imperial) this year. It fits perfectly and still in a very good shape.
Thank you in advance for your help on this!
Hi Kevin
Imperials are a good match to the Standard, IMO, so definitely no need to switch boots.
Don’t think you’d have any drag issues on the 146 or 149 Hel Yes, unless you’re really like Euro carving or something, but even then, with 28cm long boots (and a good bit of toe bevel on the Imperials too), you’d have to get some serious angle in really soft snow, IMO, for that to be a concern.
You’re looking at around 3.4cm of total overhang (predicted) on the 146 Hel Yes and 3.2cm of total overhang on the 149 Hel Yes. That’s around 1.7cm and 1.6cm respectively per edge, assuming perfect centering. In my experience that’s well within a safe amount. Personally I’m comfortable with up to 2.5cm on the toe edge and up to 3cm on the heel edge. You might want more leeway than that, but the Hel Yes would give you that. The Standard 149 in comparison you’re looking at around 2.4cm of total overhang (1.2cm per edge assuming perfect centering). It is wider at the inserts vs the waist compared to the Hel Yes, due to the Mid-Bite, so it’s wider at the inserts than it looks, just looking at the waist width. And this all assuming a 0 binding angle. With binding angles this reduces that overhang. So yeah, in short I don’t think you’d have any issues on the Hel Yes in that sense.
But yeah, there are things you can do to increase that agility. But it’s actually when you’re riding slower that it has the biggest impact, IMO. It’s easier to get momentum to changing edges when you’re riding faster than when you’re riding slow. So when there is something that affects how easy it is to change edges (like being wide or being really stiff) it affects things more at slow speeds, when you’ve got to provide more of that momentum to get the board to change edges yourself, rather than getting more assistance from gravity. When the board is wide for your feet (causing your feet to be quite far inside the edges of the board), then it takes more energy to transfer leverage to the edges.
Doing things like having your bindings baseplate as close to the edges, without going over, certainly helps with leverage, but it’s your feet (as opposed to boots and bindings) that have the most affect on leverage on the boards edges. The boots are certainly what determine if you have too much overhang, but it’s the feet that ultimately determine if there’s too much “underhang”.
So I wouldn’t go too stiff with bindings either. Same as with stiff boards being less maneuverable at slower speeds, so are stiff bindings. That said, you will get a bit more out of the Standard going stiffer in the bindings, I just wouldn’t go too stiff. So something like the Cartel are a good match, IMO. Stiff enough without being too stiff. The Cartel X isn’t something I got on this past season, unfortunately (I tried, and will try again start of next season). But if they’re a similar flex to the outgoing Genesis X, then they would also be a good option. Anything 6/10 to 7/10 in flex is what I would look at for the Standard. The Cartel to me feel around 6/10 in terms of flex and the Genesis X were around 7/10. Not sure if the Cartel X will be similar or not, though.
Going with something Union could make sense as their baseplates tend to be longer, so you get that extra leverage on the edges of the board, which would certainly be a plus on the 149 Standard for you. The Strata (6/10), Atlas (6.5/10) and Falcor (7/10) would be my picks to match the Standard, if you went Union. The Atlas aren’t as long in the baseplate as the Strata or Falcor, but they do have the ability to adjust the gas pedal, which the Strata and Falcor don’t have. But yeah, the Atlas or Cartel both really good in terms of adjustability.
Hope this gives you more to go off and let me know if you need any more details on any of those boards or bindings
Hi Nate,
Thanks a lot for the very detailed answer. The measurements on overhangs are very helpful. Really love these technical talks!
I spent some time researching a bit more today, and to be honest I might change my choice to the Hel Yes. Here’s what I found:
First, I measured the heights from the ground to my boots (+ bindings) to be 5.5cm (Imperials do have bevel). I also uses 15/-15 binding angles so effectively the boots’ length is around 27cm
On the Hel Yes 149, with 15/-15 bindings I’ll have 1.1cm overhangs per side (neglecting underbites) based on your numbers. I ride in Japan so if the soft snow is 0.5cm (should it be more?), it’s effectively 1.6cm overhangs. With 5.5cm heights, the triangle calculator gives me 74 degrees – that’s already a lot of angles. You’re absolutely right. I can also move the bindings back a bit as well if I want to try Euro carve.
On the Standard 149, with the same assumptions I’ll get 78 degrees from the triangle calculator which is not very different.
I also looked at bit at another website that said the Standard is slow edge-to-edge, and that’s because he was on the 156 (25.8 waist width – big size for him) with US 9 boots (26cm foot length). I’m in an even worse situation because my feet are actually shorter than the waist width of the 149 🙁
The surface area of Hel Yes 149 vs Standard 149 is also only 1 DM2 different (2.7% diff) which is still very close.
So yeah…. after looking at the numbers. I might just go with the Hel Yes combining with the Cartels (I guess).
How should I consider in picking the 146 vs 149 (the specs are super close except the length)? Which length do you recommend and why?
Thank you!
Hi Kevin
A good call, I think – and well thought out.
Between the 146 and 149, it’s a tough call. In terms of powder, you’re going to get more float out of the 149 and it’s going to feel more stable when riding at speed and a little better for big carves. The 146 would give you a bit more agility and be a bit easier to throw around. Better for butters, spins, tricks in general and better in trees. The 149 is at the upper end of your range, IMO, but the 146 is at the lower end of your range, so both are definitely options.
I think it comes down to whether you want to gain a little more agility for trees & ground tricks whilst sacrificing a little in terms of powder, speed and carving, if you go with the 146 and visa versa with the 149. Given you’re in Japan and you’ve mentioned a majority of riding groomers and pow, that I’d be leaning towards the 149 – but if depends on how much you’re pow is in the trees, and how much you’re doing ground tricks vs carving when on groomer. And which you want to emphasize the most.
The other thing to consider is what size you’re more used to. If you usually ride closer to 149 or to 146, then that’s could be another pointer towards the right size.
Nate,
Saw your review and many others, and after digging around the internet for all-mountain boards, decided to pull the trigger on this bad boy today! 5’11”, 185-195lbs, 10.5US and I opted for the 156. Any ideas on a decent set of bindings for this thing? I ride pretty much everywhere – bowls, speedy groomers, side hits, deep deep, and park (though I haven’t gotten around to messing with rails (yet)) – and besides craigslist have no real experience purchasing equipment. Would love to hear your thoughts!
Hi Trevor
Thanks for your message.
Main thing I would say is to match up the flex pretty close. So, for the Standard, I would go either 6/10 or 7/10 in terms of flex. Check out the following for some great options in that flex range:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First your website is GOLD!!!!!
I m about to buy the Standard which discovered here, after long reading of your all your articles, i came to the conclusion i should go for the 153, but im still hesitant with the 156.
my specs are 176 cm for 78kg and a size 9 burton photon.
could you help to confirm my choice please?
thank you
forget to mention that i want to change my boots for Adidas ADV who should be 8.5 as they fit larger than burton, but i cant confirm as i didn’t try them yet.it is just assumptions of what i have read everywher.
Hi Stephen
For the Standard, I would say go 153 with your specs. For a lot of other boards, it would be more like 156, but in this case I would go 153, given your boot size vs the width of the Standard.
Same would go if you change for Adidas ADV in 8.5s, and yeah I find that I have to go half a size down for Adidas boots (I usually wear a 10, but I’m 9.5 for Adidas boots), so if you’re 9 in Burton, then 8.5 in Adidas is most likely the best size for you.
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate
Thank you for your help and also Thank you to share your knowledge about snowboarding with us.
So the buy is done 😀
153 standard with Now pilot bindings .
I had a little run and i m a really happy man.
Thanks again for your help and keep up doing your fantastic work.
You’re very welcome Stephen. Happy riding!
Sorry Nate just for correction. My weight is -75 lbs 75 kg without gears. And I am 178cm tall with boots size 8.5-9.
Hi Tim
Thanks for your messages.
Firstly, in terms of mid-bite vs magnetraction, that it’s a very close call – and it depends on the level of magnetraction. I would say very aggressive magnetraction has better hold in icy conditions vs mid-bite. Not by a huge amount but is a little better. But can sometimes feel “grabby” in softer snow. I never get that feeling from mid-bite. Mid-bite has better grip than more mellow magnetraction. In terms of the mid-bite vs the magnetraction on the Rider’s Choice, I would say maybe the Rider’s Choice by a very small margin, but all 3 boards are very good in that area, so I wouldn’t decide solely on that as I think you’ll find them all good. Also to note, that the Rider’s Choice has never felt grabby to me.
The Standard isn’t technically true twin, it’s directional volume twin, but it’s essentially a twin – except when you’re in powder, then it gives you a bit more in powder. Still really good for riding switch.
Given that you like to ride powder, the Standard is the best option for that in my opinion, particularly if you make use of the slam back inserts on powder days. Followed by the Rider’s Choice, followed by the Greats.
For carving, the Greats is the best, IMO, followed by the Standard, followed by the Rider’s Choice.
They’re all about equal in terms of buttering, IMO.
For jumps the Greats and Rider’s Choice the best, IMO, but the Standard still very very good in that area.
There isn’t a bad choice between them for what you’re describing, but hopefully that gives you more to go off for your decision.
In terms of size, I would say the following for each:
– Standard: 153 (this and the Greats are sizing down a little from a size I’d usually recommend but for your boot size and your overall specs, and given these are wider boards, this is the best size for you, IMO)
– Greats: 154
– Rider’s Choice: 154.5 or 157.5 – I think probably 154.5 given the style you’re describing. It sounds like when you’re on the groomers you like to ride freestyle quite a bit – buttering sidehits etc – and you ride trees a bit by the sounds of it. But if I have that wrong and you do like to ride fast and straight line it more than I’m thinking you do, then the 157.5 is a possibility, but from what I’m getting from you and from your specs, I would say 154.5.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thanks for your answer.
For Yes board, I found they also have underbite like Yes basic. How is underbite compared to midbite in edge hold?
Time to pick LoL, really need your help.
What if I only pick one board which board should I pick (among those three or you have other better recommendation)?
What if I can pick two boards, the reason is that one board is freestyle-all mountain and another is all mountain-freeride, which two would you recommend? (Not limit to those three but please take edge hold into consideration).
Thanks
Hi Tim
Underbite just as good as Mid-bite for icy conditions, IMO. Maybe even slightly better. But overall, I prefer the likes of the Standard, Greats, Ghost or Jackpot for all-mountain-freestyle riding, over something like the Basic or Typo.
If you can only pick one board, then I think I would go Standard, just because it gives you that little bit more versatility in terms of powder.
If you were to go for one all-mountain freestyle and a more freeride oriented option, I would go YES Greats or Rider’s Choice for the all-mountain-freestyle option.
For the more freeride option, that opens up a whole new thing. Would you want it to still be able to ride switch OK, or would you be happy with it being considerably more directional? Would you want to go stiffer or keep things around that mid-flex range? Would you be using it predominantly for riding trees and powder? If you can give me a bit more information as to how you would use the 2nd board in your quiver, that would help to narrow down some options.
Hi Nate
For the second board for all mountain free ride I still prefer ride switch. I am okay with stiffer flex or keep the medium flex either way is okay. And yes this board will be the main board for riding powder and trees. What do you recommend? Yes standard or PYL? The standard might be a bit overlapping with riders choice?
Hi Tim
Yeah, I think going Standard and Rider’s Choice would be going with 2 relatively similar types of boards. Certainly not the same boards by any means. They both have a very different feel to each other and different strengths and weaknesses, so they’re certainly going to offer different things as part of a quiver. But personally I would go for a bigger difference, and go with something a little more directional than the Standard. Something like the PYL would work well, I think. You can certainly still ride it switch. Not as good for switch as the Standard, but certainly doable.
Other options could include the Lib Tech E Jack Knife or Niche Story, but I think the PYL would go well with the Rider’s Choice in a two board quiver.
Hi Nate,
I will go Yes Standard. Just the size issue, I look at the Yes table, 153cm has 25.3 WAIST WIDTH (CM). I check back your post for “Men’s Waist Width Chart” at 15°, for boots size 8.5, it is minimum 237 to maxium 247. Should I go Standard 151cm? It has less underhaul for me. I read many reviews says this board is mid-wide board, it will affect to the turn initiation if the board is too big.
thanks!
Hi Tim
Yeah, in my experience a wider board is slower to initiate turns on, but sizing down in terms of length counteracts that, so I often, depending on boot size, recommend going down in size on this board, if it’s going to be on the wide size for your boots. For you, I think the 153 is on the wide size for your boots, but it’s also on the short size for your specs, so I think that would already be sizing down.
151 would be doable, but it’s sizing down a reasonable amount. Between the 2, I would say that:
– The 153 will be subtly better at speed and in powder and for long arcing carves
– The 151 will be more maneuverable at slower speeds and better for more freestyle stuff like butters, jibs and jumps to some extent (though the bigger size would give you a bigger landing platform, which can be good to have, especially for larger jumps)
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
My boots size 8.5 will be best for 151 cm, but my weight (actually 165lbs naked) will be more suitable for 153cm. It is really a hard decision, but I am more and more towarding 151cm due to the quicker edge-to-edge response(due to the mid-wide board). Do you think the waist width and another board specs will work for me? I do not believe I will have large jump in near feature like you mentioned (starting from small one :-p).
It is a midbite, so it is actually wider over the bindings than the waist width (248mm), I should be safe from boot overhaul, is that right?
Last, how do you think the Yes website (Support, Sizing guildlines), it seems like Standard in under “Traditional group”, and Yes suggest people ride wider board to have fun experience. Is that out of date, i.e., the page was published before Greats, Standard and Jackpot brought Midbite and became mid-wide?
Hi Tim
No the YES website is not out of date. They have been proponents of going wider for some time now. I agree to some extent. It’s true that if you go too narrow, then you can risk toe drag, if you’re really railing a carve. However, I also know from experience that I personally find boards that are too wide for my boots to be physically harder to initiate a turn on – and not as fun for that reason. So there’s a balance that needs to be gained between going wide enough but not too wide.
For your boot size, I think the 151 is wide enough not to run into any boot drag issues, so I don’t think you have any issues with it being too narrow. You could go considerably narrower without issue than that. So, if you wanted to go for the 151, it’s definitely an option.
If you wanted to go longer, but narrower, then you could look at something like the YES Typo, if you wanted to stay YES. For that, the 155 would be the best size for you, IMO.
Hi Nate,
I have made a purchase on 151 cm Standard. It will be as my major resort board for carving, side hit and ground tricks. Also, in case a good heavy snow day (which is rare in Ontario), it is still not too bad for floaty and trees.
Also, I will buy another board the LibTech Terrain Wrecker 157 (so like the graphics in both the Standard and TW 2020) as my 2nd board for big mountain while still keep the riding switch potential.
Hopefully, 151 will work for me, and will have to report to you in next season of what it feels like because all resort are close now…
Thank you for all the helps and efforts you put on this website and your comments for me!
Tim
Hi Tim
Thanks for the update. I look forward to hearing how you get on with the Standard and Terrain Wrecker next season, once we all get a chance to get back out on snow! I’m already itching for it. I think even more so, given that we were cut short this season.
Hi Nate
Have to decide one board from your list.
1) Yes standard 2) Yes greats. 3) GNU riders choice 4) your recommend?
First, the most important conditions to decide the board for me is: edge hold on ice. I live East coast we have lot of icy days. I run Burton boards now but I feel I can’t hold my edge on the ice which is matched to many reviews on burton boards. So ice performance number one considering. How is Yes midbite compare to GNU Magne technology? Which one perform best in hard ice?
Second, must be true twin. Those three boards are all true twin. If you have any other board to recommend i would still prefer the board can play switch.
Third, the board can match my style. I’m not a park guy but willing to learn. I am 70% groom riding switch, carving, buttering and jumping. 20% will take trips for powder and trees, and 10% is the park.
My info: I’m 178cm and 175lb without gears. My boots size is 8.5 burton slx. Which board and the board length you’d recommend?
Hey Nate,
Been looking to get some new gear and your website has been immensely helpful. After reading your review of the Yes Standard I think I’ve decided that this will be my next board as I advance on the slopes. I’m an intermediate rider who is 5’6, 135-140 lbs, and a size 8. Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time deciding on whether a 149 cm or a 151 cm board would be a good length for me. I only plan on owning 1 board so I’m really trying to get something that can do everything while avoiding any buyer’s remorse. I’ve ridden on boards all the way between 146-154, and reading through the comments it seems like you suggest going a little shorter on the Yes Standard. What is your recommendation for my specs?
Thanks!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
For you I would go 149. It’s definitely a board I would err on the shorter side of, depending on boot size. With size 8 boots, I would definitely err on the shorter side. Also as an intermediate rider, I would err on the shorter side. So, whilst the 151 would be OK in terms of length, I think the 149 would be a better length/width combo for your specs – a better overall size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate thanks for all wicked info and content on your site. Question about the Standard. I am early intermediate and looking to upgrade my board have narrowed down to the Standard in 153 or the Greats Unic in 154.
Riding is all mountain and looking for a one board do it all. Not really in the park but like having the option. I am 5’9” around 176lb and size 9 boot. Any thoughts or advice on the two?
And just to make things really interesting I have also been considering a Yes PYL but am wondering if it may be a littl above me at this point in time
Hi Tom
Thanks for your messages.
Yeah if your early intermediate I would say the PYL is just that bit too much of a stretch, so I would stick to looking at the Standard or Greats. Between those 2, I would say probably the Standard for you, just because you mention you want your board to be an all-rounder. The Greats is for the most part an all-rounder, but it’s not as good for powder. Assuming you ride powder sometimes, then I think the Standard would be a more well-rounded ride for you. However, if you rarely see powder or if it’s never really that deep, then I would say go for the Greats.
Hope this helps with your decision
Certainly does mate yup, it’s the way I was leaning also. Any thoughts on the size for the standard. I was looking at the 153?
Thanks again
Hi Tom
Yeah I think the 153 is probably the best. Usually I would say go more like 156, 157 for your specs. But with 9s on the Standard, I think the 153 is the way to go. It would be between that and the 156. The 156 would give you more stability at speed and better float in powder and better for big carves vs the 153, but the 153 will be a more maneuverable ride and better for freestyle stuff and tress, IMO. So it would partly depend on what you prioritize the most there.
Nate, thanks again for all the help much appreciated. I will be picking up my Standard in 153 this week.
All the best
You’re very welcome Tom. 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, just checking back in here. I got the Standard in 153 and have had a couple days with it on the snow now. Wow is all I can say, very very pleased and impressed with this, it’s night and day difference to my old Agenda. Has filled me with confidence so far and I love it. Once again sir Thankyou for your advice and Thankyou for the awesome job you do with the site.
All the best
Hi Tom
Thanks for the update and awesome that you’re loving the Standard! (hard not to IMO).
Hello,
Just got this board and rode it for the first time. Absolutely loved it. Super poppy, super stable, and really fast. I have a question about the setback. I have mini disk binding so I set it up with a setback of about 3/4 of an inch…about a 22.5″ stance…just so I have a little more nose when I’m off in the Backcountry. Do you think this is a problem for everyday riding since this board is essentially a twin? I know you state in your review it rode fine centered but I was just curious if this is an issue? I’ll ride switch if I’m landing switch or forced to depending on the circumstances but generally I’m riding regular.
Thanks,
David
Hi David
Thanks for the update on the Standard and awesome that you’re loving the ride!
No problems having a bit of a setback on the Standard, IMO. It’s a directional volume twin, but there’s no reason you can’t ride it with a bit of a setback. With the mini-disc, you can’t take advantage of the “slam back” inserts, but setting back like you, I don’t see any issues there. Sure, it’s not ideal for riding switch, but if you’re only ever in switch briefly, it should be all good.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Just discovered the website: great stuff here. Two question here. I’m coming back to snowboarding after a few years hiatus, Consider myself a beginning intermediate. I really like the characteristics of this board, but is it too much of a step up? Just boarded on loans until now. Secondly: What size would you advise for me? Size 9 US boots, 180 cm and around 80 kg (just a little smaller than you overall). 153 or 156? Speciallly considering the width of this board?
Hi Li
Thanks for your message.
Hard to say if it’s going to be too much for your level or not but it’s borderline. And I think the sizing isn’t idea either way. 153 a bit too short, IMO and the 156, although would be sizing down a bit, might still be a bit on the wide side. The combination of size not being idea and the fact it might be a little on the advanced side would make me hesitant to go for this one. I would rather look at the Typo, if you wanted to stick with YES.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the swift reply man! Yeah was also considering the typo. What size would I need for that board? And are there other do it all boards that I might consider? Im a True all mountain dude, I like pow, just clowning around and carving down the bigger slopes.. something playful but all round.. cheers and thanks in advance
Ps I’m actually a us 10, just checked my boots. Does that make a difference?
Hi Li
Actually yeah that does make a difference. I think the 156 Standard would be a good size for you. The only consideration then is if it’s just a bit beyond your level, which is hard to say for sure. But if you feel like you’ll get up to speed quickly, that’s an option for sure.
If you were to go Typo, I would go for the 158.
Some other good options would include the:
– Slash Brainstorm 157
– Rossignol One LF 156 or 159
– Burton Custom Flying V 158
– Nitro Team Gullwing 157
– Never Summer Snowtrooper 156 or 159
Those are the ones off the top of my head that I think would work really well for you, in addition to the Typo. In terms of being good for your level, but also good all-rounders, if you didn’t go with the Standard or Typo.
Thanks for all the info Nate, I really appreciate it! I actually found a really cheap standard in my size (test board), and couldn’t resist. Will let you know how it works out. Thanks again!
Hi Li
Thanks for letting me know. Awesome that you were able to get it for a good price. Look forward to hearing how you get on.
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’1, 195lbs, size us 10.5 Salomon Dialogue Focus BOA’s (chunky boot)
This board looks exactly like what I’m looking for and I’m really leaning towards this board in the 159 variety. My only concern is that it’s going to be too wide and I’m going to feel like its too slow edge to edge which is important to me as I like to ride the trees.
Should I send it on the 159 or should I look elsewhere?
From one Nate to the other thank you! Your website is awesome and super helpful.
Hey Nate – great name!
Thanks for the message.
Length-wise, I think the 159 is spot on for your specs, taking into account that it’s going to be wide for your feet. For a narrower board, I would probably go a little longer than that for your specs. Though riding trees a lot you could size down a little. It’s hard to say for sure, but I think you would fine on it. If you really wanted that maneuverability from a narrower board for the trees, I can definitely see your hesitation then, but I think the sizing to 159 it would still work. I like the 156 in this board, but I ride 10s (and a 27cm foot), and was 6’0″, 185lbs when I rode the Standard last. With that little bit more in terms of boot size, height and weight, I think the 159 would work well. If you know your foot length, that would also be useful. I think if it’s 27.5-28cm, I think you’ll be fine. In terms of getting too wide, it’s more about foot size than boot size. In terms of going too narrow it’s more about boot size.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the great info in these reviews. I’m 6’ 210lbs with a size 12 u.s. boot. I’m in between 159 and 162 on the Standard. I’ve scanned through most of your replies in this review and it sounds like either would be a good choice for me based on my boot size. What I’m interested in is, will there be a noticeable difference in how these two board sizes handles based on my weight? Would there be a noticeable difference in turn initiation from 159 to 162 at my size?
I was able to demo a 156 Yes Ghost and it wasn’t as stable as i had hoped for, but I’m sure that was because it wasn’t the best size in that board for me.
Hi Jake
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, 156 is a bit short for your specs for the Ghost, so not too surprised it didn’t feel that stable.
Size-wise for the Standard, it’s a close call between the 159 and 162, but I would be leaning towards the 162. You could definitely get on the 159 with 12s, so width isn’t an issue there. But I would still be leaning towards the 162 for your specs, assuming a relatively advanced level or riding.
In terms of the likely differences you’ll feel on each size, I would say:
– The 162 will feel more stable at speed, float better in powder and bet better for harder/deeper carves
– The 159 will be easier to maneuver, and be easier to butter/press and for freestyle stuff in general
There will be a difference in turn initiation between the 2, with the 159 being faster edge-to-edge, but with your specs, I think the 162 will be maneuverable for you anyway, and you’ll get the stability/float benefits from it. It does depend on your preferences when you ride though. If you prefer a more playful ride, like to ride a lot of trees and freestyle, then the 159 is still an option, but overall I would be leaning towards 162 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for all the info. Wish I could demo the board but no shops near me carry it for some reason, so I appreciate your help.
You’re very welcome Jake. Hope you’re having a great season
Hi Nate,
I am 6,2 about 185, size 11.5. think the 159w is good for me, I like to do a bit of everything, been venturing out to the back country more and more but still like to hit jumps and do spins. I’ve always ridden boards under 160 so I’m scared to go for the 162. Do you think I’m good on the 159w or should I size up?
thanks,
David
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think the 159 would work well. You could ride 162 as well, for sure, but if you’re used to under 160, then I think the 159 will work really well – especially given you’re still wanting it for jumps/spins.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Great site! Thank you very much for your reviews!
I’m intermediate, 6′, 190-200lbs, US10.5 boot size. Usualy I ride groomed trails, sometime a little powder or freestyle. I’m looking for all mountain board and thinking about Yes Standard. But, 156 or 159? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response (I was already behind after Christmas, then had some family issues to deal with – getting back on track now (hopefully!).
It’s a touch call between those sizes for your specs, but I would be leaning towards the 159 for you. That’s sizing down a little from the “standard length” I would assign to your specs, but the board is on the wider side for 10.5s, so that size down makes sense, IMO. I like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs, US10) – and you’re not too far different to my specs, but with that slightly larger boot size and that little more weight it tips you into the 159, IMO. Also, for me, I typically like to ride a little shorter, as I like to incorporate a fair bit of freestyle and trees. The 156 is doable for you, but it would be a more freestyle focused kind of deck. For powder, speed and carving, I think you’ll appreciate the 159 more – and I think the benefits in those areas would outweigh the maneuverability/freestyle gains of the shorter 156.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate!
Thanks a lot! I have a question, if you allow me.
I read your article “How Important is Snowboard Width Sizing and How Do I Get it Right”. I started measuring my feet and boots and found that my boots (US10.5) 31cm and my feet 27cm. I fear, that yes 159 will be too wide for me, especially in my stance +21/+6 or +18/+3. What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Hi Mike
Yeah that does make a difference. I have 27.3cm feet (or at least my left foot is about that). Since it’s your feet that ultimately apply pressure to the edges, that does make the board wider for you than I thought with the 10.5 boot size. That does make the 156 more appealing. Only thing is that it will compromise on stability at speed for your weight vs something like the 159. But if you’re willing to take that compromise, I think the 156 can work for you. If you’re concerned with that stability at speed factor, then it might be worth looking at a different board.
Hey Nate,
Awesome site. Love the comprehensive reviews you provide.
I’m debating between the Standard and the Typo. Currently I ride an Arbor Foundation 158cm. Stellar board to learn on but I’m starting to feel like I’m outgrowing it. It’s easy to turn, but lacks stability at speed, tends to wash out on steeps, or in icy/hard pack conditions. I can compensate to a degree by using my knees more actively but that can get tiring if riding lots of moguls/chunder.
I’ve been riding for a couple years, usually hit a mix of groomers, trees, moguls. Solid blue runner, and will do a handful of blacks each time I’m out. I do small jumps on runs and occasionally jump a box at the park for fun, but not really a park person. I ride almost entirely in Canadian Rockies, so nice snow mostly, but steeper runs are the norm. We rarely have “ice” days like out east, but windswept hard pack are common on exposed slopes.
I’m looking for a board that has good edge hold and stability at speed, while also still being quick to turn edge to edge. Both the Typo and Standard seem like candidates, my only worry with the Standard is if it’s too much board for me. I don’t want to pick up a new stick and have my butt handed to me.
Specs are 170lbs, 5 ’10, size 10 boots. Ride regular, duck foot stance about 15 plus, 10 neg. Eager to hear your thoughts on which board makes more sense for me.
Hi James
Please refer to my response to your other message.
Hi!
I just sold my 18/19 Jones Mountain Twin 167w since, at least for me, it was waaay to stiff and damp. I still see a lot lof positive reviews for this board and comments that it is playfull and can handle park runs and jibs, but I completely disagree; this board is not playfull.
Now I want something a bit more mellow and fun, but still has the capability to carve and charge the whole mountain, including park runs.
I have a hard time choosing between the Yes Standrad 167 and a Gnu Riders Choice 166w. I am 192cm tall and weigh ~104kg with US size 12 Ion’s. I am leaning hard towards the Yes, but still, previous awesome experiences with the Gnu Riders choice is hard to ignore…
Which would you recommend?
Best regards, Pär
Hi Pär
Thanks for your message.
Between the Standard and Rider’s Choice, I would say that the Rider’s Choice is the more playful option – and most suited to the park. But the Standard is still fine for riding the park, and still has some playfulness to it. It’s surprisingly easy to butter given it’s flex (6/10) and has a snappy rather than damp feel, IMO. It would be the better option for carving and speed, IMO. It’s a tough choice as on the one hand you have the more playful Rider’s Choice, and it’s something you’ve ridden and know you like, but you would, IMO, get more out of carving/speed from the Standard. I would say that the Standard would feel roughly half way between the Rider’s Choice and Mountain Twin in terms of playfulness.
I would be leaning towards the Standard, but it’s a tough one, particularly as you’ve had good experiences on the Rider’s Choice and it’s a known quantity for you. Hope this gives you more info to go off anyway.
Hi Nate,
Great site, it’s been very helpful so far so thank you!
I’d like your opinion about two boards i’m considering: Yes Standard or Endeavor Pioneer (156cm for both unless you suggest otherwise). I’m 5’11” 160 lbs wearing size 11 Burton Photon boots and size large Burton Mission Re:Flex bindings (15, -15).
I ride a bit of everything but spend most of my time riding a combination of groomers and trees. I’d say carving, maneuverability, pop, and switch riding are my biggest priorities. Could you recommend which of those boards I should go with based on my specs and riding style?
Hi Nikko
Thanks for your message.
I would say YES Standard, but both are good options. To me the Pioneer is more freestyle oriented. It’s still something that’s good for riding groomers, trees, carving etc as well, but just not quite to the same level as something like the Standard, IMO. For speed, carving and powder, the Standard, IMO, has it over the Pioneer. The Pioneer is a little more maneuverable I would say, and just a touch better for switch, jumps and butters, but overall, I would say the Standard for what you’re describing.
The 156 for the Standard is a good bet for you, IMO. The width is good for 11s and that’s the length I would say for your specs/what you’re describing. The 156 for the Pioneer too – the only thing there would be the width. I would say you’d get away with it, but it’s going to be on the narrower end of your range. That will help even more so with maneuverability, but if you like to really rail your carves, then there’s a small chance of boot drag there, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision (also see my Pioneer review if you haven’t already if you want to see more detail on that).
Hey Nate,
Debating between the Typo and the Standard. My specs are 175 lbs, 5’10, size 10 boot. Current board is the Arbor Foundation. It’s an amazing board to learn on but I feel that I’ve outgrown it, particularly when it comes to crossing chunder fields, high speeds and carving. Wash outs are common in hard-pack/ice and stability at higher speeds is sometimes terrifying. I can accommodate somewhat by engaging my knees more but it definitely wears me down way faster over the course of a day.
I ride a mix of groomers, moguls, off-piste/powder and trees. Solid on blue runs, and do a handful of blacks most days but still have trouble committing to high-speed turns on really steep blacks in places like Kicking Horse. I may hit the occasional jump on a run, but not a park guy. Ride mostly in Alberta/BC/Montana.
Looking at the Standard because it’s quiver of one, has good edge-hold in hard pack and ice, carves well, good stability at speed, has very good reviews, I can ride it until it’s worn out. Debating the Typo because it is slightly more intermediate than advanced (worried Standard may be too much board for me and Typo is more forgiving). I hate the Typo’s graphics, but whatever. I just don’t want to grab a Standard and not be able to handle it. I’ve ridden hybrid and camber boards before, so camber style isn’t an issue.
Cheers, and thanks.
Hi James
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. A bit behind and trying to catch up after vacation.
Both boards would be an upgrade from the Arbor Foundation for sure. But I think, based on what you’re describing that the Standard is your best bet. It’s not a super technical board to ride, and I think from what you describe that it won’t be too hard to handle. It’s certainly a little more advanced than the Typo, but it’s still intermediate friendly-enough. It will be a bigger step up from the Foundation to that, but I think it’s a step that you should be able to handle, based on what you’re describing. And it’s something that you wouldn’t have to upgrade from. The Typo would likely be an easier adjustment, but given the style of riding you’re describing, might be something that you might want to upgrade again from 2-4 seasons down the line (depending on how often you ride).
Size-wise for the Standard, I would go 156. It’s sizing down a little, but the board is on the wider side, so sizing down is a good idea. I like the 156 in the Standard and I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boot. But I probably ride it a little more on the freestyle side compared to what you’re describing, and I typically prefer a little shorter – so I think even though I’ve got a little size on you, weighing everything up, I would go 156. If you were to go Typo, I would say the 158 would be the best choice.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome Nate. That’s helpful. Thanks so much for the thoughtful response. You rock.
You’re very welcome James. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Great site! Hands down the best snowboard review page I’ve come across.
I’ve been looking for a “do it all” board, and think I’ve settled on the Standard. Your review helped me make up my mind. Now I’m trying to decide on a size. I’m torn between the 156 and 159. I’m 6’2”, about 190-195lb, and wear a 10.5US boot. I’m an advanced intermediate, east coast rider, so the majority of my riding is carving on hard packed groomers (and ice). I seek out powder whenever I can, but we don’t get much of it here, and a foot is a lot. So float is not a huge concern. I like riding trees, practicing butters/flat tricks, and finding side hits, so I was thinking that the 156 would be more nimble/fun for those things, but from what I’ve read, I’m bumping up against the upper size recommendation for the 156. Do you think I’d notice much of a difference in quickness, and flex for butters, between the 156 and 159? Coming off an old Burton Custom 161.
Thanks in advance,
Randy
Hi Randy
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. Bit behind at the moment after vacation.
Firstly, yes the 156 will feel more nimble and be more buttery than the 159. I think the question is if the reduction in stability at speed will outweigh those advantages. Even the 159 will, IMO, be more buttery than the 161 Custom, so you should already gain an advantage there, regardless of size. But in terms of being more nimble, I’m not sure the 159 Standard would be vs the 161 Custom – mainly because of how much wider it is. With 10.5s, the 159 is doable, and is still sizing down for you, for a do-it-all board, IMO, so that counters some of that extra width, in terms of for nimblenesses sake. But whether it will feel as nimble as your Custom 161 feels, is questionable. I would say certainly so for the 156 though.
I like the 156 but you’ve got a little bit of height/weight/1/2 boot size on me, so it’s a tough one.
I think if nimbleness, butterability and tricks/side hits are your biggest priorities and you’re willing to sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed, then the 156 is certainly doable – but it is, IMO, sizing down quite a bit for your specs. If you want to keep more of a balance between speed and everything else, then the 159 is probably the better choice.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate,
Thanks for the reply. It sounds like the 159 is the best bet for me. I appreciate your time and insight.
Quickly, are there any other boards that you’d recommend? Ive also considered the Solomon Assassin and the Yes NSB Globe. Open to other suggestions.
Thanks. Hope you had a good vacation.
Randy
And the Yes The Greats.
Hi Randy
One of the biggest differences between the Greats and the Standard, is that the Standard is better in powder, IMO. The other is the asym side-cut, which I really like but isn’t for everyone. And it does mean you can’t really set it back on a powder day – well I’ve never tried it anyway. I feel like it would seem weird with the asymmetry. But since you mention you don’t get powder a lot, then it could be doable. There are some advantages to it over the Standard – a little better for carving, IMO – and I think that’s down to a little less rocker in the nose and tail and also I like that asym tech for heel side carves. Also a little better for jumps, spins and riding switch. An overall more freestyle focused ride though. Similar width-wise to the Standard (a little wider overall).
The Assassin is a great board too. It’s something that I label all-mountain-freestyle, but I’m always very close to calling it all-mountain – so it is a very versatile board. I’d say probably go 162 for that one normally, but the way you describe your riding “riding trees, practicing butters/flat tricks, and finding side hits” you could definitely go to 159 there – and the width would work at that size too, IMO.
The Greats is just a little softer flexing than the Standard. The Assassin is another small step down from the Greats, IMO.
I haven’t ridden the NSB Globe, unfortunately, so I can’t say much there. It is supposed to be a stiffer board though, so I’m not sure it would butter as well as the likes of the Standard and Greats.
Hey Nate! Love the in-depth reviews, very helpful. I am considering the YES Standard 156 or the Nitro Team Exposure 157 W. I’m 5’9″ 170lbs, Boot size 11. Thinking about getting the 2020 Vans Aura Pro also. I currently plan on using my Rome 390 Boss bindings for now. I’ve read great reviews on both boards, but your description of what the Standard is built for sounds like my style of riding, but I’m nervous about toe drag compared to the Nitro. What do you think?
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
In terms of the Standard, I think the 156 would be a great size for you. It’s wider than it looks – being 270mm at the inserts vs the 258mm waist. I don’t think you should have too many issues with size 11s, with that width. The only thing would be if you had quite a straight back binding angle and were doing like Euro carving or something. The Vans Aura Pro are also quite low profile, so that gives you extra leeway too. The Team 157W I would predict to be around 273mm at the inserts, so a bit more there, but not a massive amount wider. A lot of wide boards for around that length are around that, so the Standard isn’t far off, when it comes to the width at inserts, a typical wide board for that length.
I think the Vans Aura Pro, assuming they fit you well, are a good match for the Standard.
I don’t know a lot about Rome bindings, but on paper it looks like it would be a good match for the Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
THX for a great website, I really enjoy reading your reviews and find them very helpful!
I’m an all mountain intermediate+ raider, I ride mainly groomers and pow and love hitting natural features, side hits and doing spins, in the park its mainly small to medium jumps and a little bit of basic box trick.
reading your top 10 all mountain boards reviews left me un able to decide between the YES Standard and the JONES Mountain Twin. I’m 175 cm, 80kg and wear 9.5 boots
I would really appreciate your help choosing the right board and right size for me
THX
Hagay
Hi Hagay
Thanks for your message.
There isn’t a bad choice between those 2 boards, and either one would serve you well for what you’re describing, IMO.
Size-wise, for your specs and how you describe your riding, I would go with:
– YES Standard: 156
– Jones Mountain Twin: 157
Size-wise, I think the 157 Mountain Twin is probably best suited to your specs, so that may be the way to make a decision between the 2 boards.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate
Cheers for posting all the reviews! Pretty keen on the Yes Standard but not too sure of size. I’m 85kg, 6′ and size 11.5 boots (US).
I guess I’m probably an advanced rider but I’ve been riding the same board for years – a Rossi One, 163W which I love. Too many dings though and don’t think it’ll survive another season! I’m starting to think it may have been a little on the large size having read your reviews about the Standard but it still falls an inch or so short of my chin when I’m in my boots (K2 Thraxis).
Having read your reviews above I am thinking the 159 for the Standard but kind of enjoy charging and carving when there’s no powder to hit – is it going to be wide and long enough for me? Like you I love the tree runs in powder but I’m not so good when it comes to freestyle – I want a board that’s forgiving enough to give it a good go though.
Also, my bindings are Burton Cartels from a few seasons back – are they going to allow me to use the “slam back” inserts you described in the review? Heading to Japan in a few weeks and dreaming of deep powder!
I really need to find that one board that will do it all as I have to travel to get to the slopes – a quiver’s not an option unfortunately. Any and all other suggestions welcome!
Cheers
Dave
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would be weighing up between the 159 and 162 for you. The 159 should be wide enough for sure, so I wouldn’t worry about that in your decision.
Pros of going 159 include more maneuverability – and better for learning freestyle stuff and since you mention that, it’s worth considering.
Pros of 162 is that it would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed. And since you’re used to a 163, it would be a more familiar length.
If the Cartel’s are Re:Flex with a 4 x 4 disc, then they should be fine for the slam back inserts.
Hope this helps with your decision and hope you enjoy your trip to Japan
Cheers for getting back to me so quickly – just bought the 159! Checked and the reference stance is the same I’ve been riding for years and now I’ve looked at them again I can see you’re right, the cartels should work fine with the slam backs…
BTW, measured my 163 board up again because thought it was a bit odd. It’s now 160 tip to tip – didn’t realise boards shrank! Hoping the 159 will feel about right and got a feeling it’s going to be great fun – thank you for the advice… 🙂
Dave
You’re very welcome Dave.
I was a little confused when you said 163W Rossi One, as it’s come in a 161W but not 163W for quite a few years now. But I didn’t know if maybe you had a really old one and maybe they came in a 163W quite a while back. But yeah, usually measuring a board tip to tip they usually come up a little shorter than their stated length – just the way length is measured. So, I would say you have the 161W.
If you think of it at the time, let me know what you think of it, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow
Will do!
BTW, you’re right about the Rossi One – it is a 163 but not a wide (originally had a 157W and got mixed up…)
Ah, that makes more sense!
hey Nate, I got a good offer for the standard 156 and I am really considering getting that as I need a new board for the season. I am an intermediate rider weighing 160lbs, with size 9s. I am quite athletic I’d say and a happy groomer/park/pow rider so all-mount. Knowing it is a wide board and what you said above, do you think the slow edge to edge is going to be a big problem for me, or do you think I can overcome it and maybe even become better at making turns overall as I’ll be riding a lot this coming season..?
Appreciate the response Nate!
Hi Eliot
Thanks for your message.
I think with the combination of your weight and boot size, might make the 156 feel a bit big – particularly in terms of edge to edge. Depending on what size you’re used to riding and depending on your height (if you can let me know that, that would be awesome), I would say that the 153 would be the better bet for the Standard for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the response Nate! I am 5’9 (177cm) and have only ridden one camber board in the past (salomon craft) but have progressed decent enough from that. I only got the 156 option because it is used for only 220$.. which i would be teaming up with the Now Select Bindings…
You don’t suppose i can adapt to the slowness of edge-to-edge and maybe progress with it?
Alternatively, there is the Rossignol templar magtek 155 (new) for just 220$ and the regular templar 155 as an option if you think it’s more suitable?
ultimately, I do not think the 25.8cm width of the standard will be that hard to adapt to and progress with but i could be wrong. Maybe i just really like the standard cuz of the looks haha…
thanks alot for your time and answer anyways!
forgot to mention also the yes basic 155 (new) as an option too!
Hi Eliot
You would most likely adapt to it, at least to some extent, for sure, but whether it’s going to give you the most enjoyment/progression is another story. Being athletic will certainly help you with that, but I still think it’s a little big overall. The 258mm waist width on the Standard transalates to a 270mm insert width, which is a little wider than you would expect from a 258mm waist. If it was like a GNU or Lib Tech, or another board where the width at inserts tends to be only 5-6mm wider than the width at inserts, then I wouldn’t be as concerned. But from my experience, with size 10s, I don’t usually like anything with a width more than 265mm at the inserts. The likes of the Standard is one of the exceptions, because it does have that narrower waist which helps, and I don’t know what else about the board. But pretty much anything else over 265mm at the inserts I don’t like. With 9s, then it’s more so. And with less weight to drive the board too. I’m not overly athletic, but not un-athletic either (if that’s a word!). So yeah, that’s my experience, which is why I think you’d find it a little big, but I couldn’t say for sure how it would feel for you.
The Templar 155 would be a better size for you, IMO. And would be a good option too, IMO.
The Basic is more freestyle oriented, IMO, so given that you want to get in the pow at times, I think it’s less suitable. But the 155 would certainly be a good size for you, IMO.
hey Nate, I’ve gone for the basic 155! because I feel (based on many reviews) that it is a really good board to advance and progress on.. thanks for the information you provided! I wasn’t even considering the stance width… so I appreciate you helping out in making my decision! All the best to you Nate!
You’re very welcome Eliot. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new deck!
Hi Nate, thanks for all the great reviews. I’m really hesitating between the Slash brain storm and the Yes standard (scared this will be” too much” of a board for me). I’m a solid intermediate rider, going down anything, done a bit of boarder cross, occasional backcountry(would like to increase this) and park, enjoy medium jumps and rails, but have nearly always ridden on the same board for the past 10 years ( I’ve definitely outgrown this one but its been fun), a 2008-9 Palmer Halo with the occasional borrowing of a friends board in these past years.
Im 180cm girl, approx 70-75kg and size 9 boot. I would like to go for the 156 yes standard (as I have heard so much good about it) but worried that with a size 9 I might loose a bit of control because of its width. I could go for a 153 cm but then would loose floatability and for my height the 153 might not be as comfortable.
Do you think I could still go for the yes standard or should I go for another board like the slash( or the greats which has also caught my eye). Also I’m opting for mens boards because of my height; do you think I will find it harder to flex them ( even though I consider myself quite athletic)?
Thank you!!
Hi Zoe
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think that something around that 154 to 156 mark is a good length for you. However, with the Standard, I wouldn’t go as long as 156 for how wide it is for your boots. Can you confirm if your boot size is women’s US9 or Men’s US9? Regardless, I think the 156 will be too big, in combination of length and width, even with a men’s US9 – and further off still with a women’s US9.
So, if you were to go Standard, I would go 153. In terms of float, because of the extra width – and the 153 is wide for a 153 – you shouldn’t loose too much, if any vs a similar board at 156 with a narrower width. The flex of the 153 will feel more manageable than it would in the 156 also. Even the 153 will be wider than ideal for your boots – but coming down a little in length compensates for that, at least to some extent.
In terms of flex, I think with your specs and being quite athletic you should be OK with it. You might find it a little stiffer than I did, but i don’t think it will feel oppressively stiff. There’s always a little getting used to a new board, and going from the Halo, it will take some getting used to, but I don’t think it’s going to be way off.
The Brainstorm is a little easier going overall- quite a playful ride and I think the 154 would be a good length/width combination for you.
Having said all of that, I like the YES Hel Yes for you. It comes in a 155, which I think would be a great size for you – and a better width. And there’s less guessing about flex as it’s designed as a women’s board. And whilst it’s not the exact equivalent of the Standard, it’s close to, but in a better size for you, IMO. It’s a really good all-rounder that I think would handle everything you’re describing really well.
Off the top of my head, the Jones Twin Sister (155) or Jones Dream Catcher (154) would also work, but for what you’re describing, and because you like the sound of the Standard I would be leaning Hel Yes. And in terms of the Twin Sister, it’s a little wider, so might not be as good in terms of width vs the Hel Yes.
Anyway, hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the review. I am so interested in this snowboard but not sure if it fits me. I am a women weighted 130lbs, 162cm tall wearing men size US7 Adidas snowboard boots. I see myself as an intermediate snowboarder want to progress my snowboarding level. I want to but an All-mountain snowboard that can do anything, including riding some park. I found this board seems to tick everything, especially it can be set back when I ride i Japan powder. But one thing I am not sure id if this men board too wide/too long/too stiff for me?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Hi Chin
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise I would recommend something around 144-147 for your specs, and that would be only if that length was a good width for your boots. Unfortunately, I would say the 149 (shortest size for this board) would be a little too long, and too wide – and the combination of being too long and too wide, would make it overall too big, IMO. If it came in a slightly narrower 146, then I think you’d be in luck, but the 149 is just a little too big, IMO. The closest women’s equivalent is the YES Hel Yes. That in a 146 would be a great option for you, IMO. You can also check out more women’s all-mountain options at the link below:
>>My Top 6 Women’s All-Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!!!
Thank you for you reviews, they are very nice… I’m a Spanish snowboarder (intermediate level) , 1,85 meters and 84 kilograms and I’m thinking change my board. I have 11Us boots, Northwave TF2. Currently I have got a Bataleon Goliath 158 and I would like buy a polyvalent board. Reading you, I discovered Yes Standard 2020 and I think that board is nice for me. I readed that this board floats well in deep powder. I love powder, off track, carving, little jumps, swicht and a little bit of Park…
Do you think that board is good option for me??
Do you think 159 is my size?
I saw Yes PYL too, but I think this board is more dificult for me….
Thank you very much from Spain!!!
Best regards!!
Hi Javi
Thanks for your message.
And thanks for increasing my vocabulary – I had to look up what polyvalent meant! But essentially you’re wanting something more versatile. I think the Standard would suit what you’re describing well. And I agree that 159 would likely be the best size for you. It’s on the wider side, even for 11s, but 159 is going down just a little from the length that I would put you on for a narrower board, so I think it would work well. And it’s not going to be super-wide for 11s either. And not too much wider than the Goliath 158W. So yeah, 159 – and I think the Standard would work for what you’re describing.
Hi Nate,
I’m wondering how this board would compare to the basic? I love the versatility, easy catch-free ride and fast turn initiation of the basic, but I’m looking for something that has a faster base, better float and a little more response. Im the type of rider that likes to butter through powder stashes, pop off side hits and weave through trees, but I also enjoy those lazy days of cruising around and slashing pow with the boys. Would you recommend this board? I currently ride a 155 basic and I feel like I would size down to a 151 with the standard because of the width. I’m in 9.5 boots.
Hi Marcel
Vs the Basic, the Standard is definitely more board – and would give you more in terms of response at higher speeds and better for carving – and just faster in general. The base isn’t ultra fast, but it does give you more than the Basic, as long as you keep it waxed (as it’s a sintered base vs the Extruded on the Basic). In terms of float it’s a little better than the Basic generally speaking, even when centered but if you make use of the “slam back” inserts to get really set back on powder days, then it’s a good step above the Basic in powder.
It’s not as buttery as the Basic, but I find the Basic really buttery. The Standard is still pretty buttery though vs most boards – and certainly more buttery than most, if not all, that I’ve ridden at it’s flex level (6/10). Not going to be as quick edge to edge size-for-size as the Basic, at least not at slower speeds anyway. The Basic is super agile at slow speeds. The Standard doesn’t match that – which is typical of stiffer boards – and also typical of slightly wider boards. But if you were to size down to 151, then I think you would find it close to or just as agile at slow speeds as the 155 Basic – as it would be a similar width and shorter (shorter typically equals more agile). Still going to be a little stiffer, but being shorter will likely cancel that out.
The Standard is in general a board that I found to be a little livelier/snappier than the Basic, so it’s got that going for it for side hits. The Basic still really fun for that, but the Standard just gives you a bit more spring/life.
Going 151 though would also counteract some of the increase in speed and float vs the 155 Basic. I’d say it would still give you some extra benefit there, but it would be somewhat negated by going shorter. I could recommend what I think is a good size for you for that board, if you wanted. I would just need your height and weight as I already have your boot size. It might be that the 153 is a better option?
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
BTW, I’m also considering Lib Tech T.Rice Pro HP C2 Snowboard 2020. 155 or 157.
Is it good for me?
Thank you.
Hi Allen.
Yeah, I think it would work for what you’re describing. But I think I would be slightly leaning towards the Standard still. I found the Standard that little bit better for carves and I think it would be easier for practicing jumps, switch etc than the T Rice Pro. If you did go T Rice Pro, I’d say probably 157, based on what you’re describing, in terms of getting the most out of your carving/speed. But the 155 would be easier for practicing jumps, spins etc. Even though the waist width is the same on the 157 as it is no the 156 Standard – it’s overall narrower than the Standard. The Standard is wider at the inserts and at the contact points.
Hi Nate.
Thank you for your prompt and generous reply. I think I will take this combination, size m Falcor and Standard 156 to embrace the coming season. You really provided very effective help. Thanks again. 😀
You’re very welcome Allen. Hope you enjoy your new setup!
Hi Nate,
I’m about 180cm, 80kg, with size 10 Vans Infuse boots(28cm).
I usually stay on groomers, having fun from carving and speed, spend very little time in trees and parks. Recently I plan to practice switch, spins and some jumps.
I’m considering buying this board of 156 or 159 together with buying my first union binding. Please kindly give me some advice about these:
1. Which length of this board would you think is best for me?
2. Is Force or Falcor suited for this board? Or is there and other brand that has more suitable bindings(while taking into account my riding preference)?
3. Will size L union binding too big for my boots? (I was told by a shop employee that these boots have a wide toe and size L Union would be better)
Thank you very much for your review and reply. 😀
Hi Allen
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, for this particular board, I would look at the 156. The 159 is going to be quite wide for your boots – which is great for getting low in your carves, in terms of avoiding boot drag, but can make the board feel sluggish, and slow edge-to-edge. The 156 is already on the wide side for 10s, so going down to 156 makes sense. I demoed the 156 and really liked that size (183cm, 84kg, size 10 Vans Aura) and never had any issues with boot drag – and didn’t feel sluggish at all).
The 159 would give you more effective edge and more stability at speed, but I think the 156 would be the better option overall.
Both the Force and Falcor would work on the Standard, but in your case I would be leaning towards the Falcor. Just because of how you describe your riding. They will give you a bit more response/power over the Force. And they still have some forgiveness and good board feel, so should be fine for when you’re practicing jumps, switch etc.
Size-wise for bindings. I own a pair of Vans Infuse also (size 10), and I always ride with Medium Union bindings and haven’t had an issue. But the toe box is certainly wider than it is on my Vans Aura – and Union’s sizing is up to 10 for medium and 10+ for Large, so you could large if you’re worried about it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I’m 6’0 180lbs 10.5 US Salomon synapse boot K2 lien AT large bindings. 156 or 159? Thanks
Hi Thomas
You’re very similar specs to me, and I would definitely go 156 for this board. So, that’s what I’d also recommend for you. You could ride the 159 but it’s going to be quite wide for your boots, IMO, and might feel a bit sluggish edge-to-edge with the combination of width and length. I think the 156 would be the best size for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, like many before me I’m going to try and take advantage of your awesome advice!
I like the look of the standard but I fall in an awkward size range (I think). I’m 87 kgs (192 pounds) without gear and 180cm (5’11”). I’m a US size 9.5 boot.
Based on weight I’m leaning towards the 159. Given my boot size though and what I’ve read I’m tempted to go for the 156. Do you think I could get away sizing down this far with this board?
If not, do any other options come to mind? I’d say I’m a solid intermediate level rider.
Cheers mate
Hi Jamie
Thanks for your message.
Generally I would say around 159-160 for your specs and solid intermediate, so 156 would be sizing down. Being a wider board though, sizing down is a good idea, IMO, for your boot size on that board. So the 156 would certainly work. It’s just weighing up whether or not that’s sizing down too much or not. I like the 156 and I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, US10 boots – so not too different in terms of specs. I do tend to ride a little shorter than what my specs suggest, because I prefer the extra maneuverability and that shorter length for more freestyle stuff – as I like to ride trees a lot, find side-hits and hit the park too. And I’m probably not the most athletic rider in the world, so going shorter just enables me to have more power over the board.
For you, I would say it depends on how you ride. If you prioritize stability at speed, float in powder, hard carving etc more than you do agility and freestyle, then 156 might feel a little small for you, even with the extra width. But in that case I probably wouldn’t go 159, just because it’s getting a little wide. In that case I would go for another option – something like one of the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Check out the descriptions and score breakdowns there to find something that sounds like it would suit you (and there are full reviews for most of them too, for more details – links on the page).
If how I described myself sounds similar to you, then I think you’ll really like the 156 Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate.
Thanks for these precious reviews. I am pondering two boards, and would love to get your gist on it: Standard 162 vs Assassin Pro 163W. I noted you ranked them in different categories, so would really like to get the pros and cons of both boards since you rode them. On my end, 180cm tall, 100kg light from the French Alps. I have been snowboarding for 30 years, so can say that my park days are behind me and I am more now surfing around on piste and off, trying to pass down the passion to my little ones. I am therefore after a great board that can do anything, including allowing me to think I can still jump around when the occasion is there;)
Cheers.
Hi Cedric
Thanks for your message.
They are in different categories, but I would say that the Standard is on the all-mountain-freestyle end of the all-mountain spectrum and the Assassin Pro is on the all-mountain end of the all-mtn-freestyle spectrum – if that makes sense! – so quite close in terms of style of board, even though they’re in different categories.
I think both boards would be fine for what you’re describing. Leaning towards the Standard, just because it’s slightly softer flexing and you might prefer that for riding with the kids, depending on what they’re level is. i.e. just a little bit easier for riding at slower speeds.
Size-wise, I think you’re right on the money – assuming you have a boot size that puts you into wide sizes.
Hope this helps
Thanks. I am indeed in the size 10.5/11 so I was looking at MW to W boards.
Hi Cedric
Is that US10.5/11 or UK10.5/11?
Us sizes I guess as my boots are DC Judge 2019 in size 44 mainland Europe.
Yeah I think with DCs a 44 = 10.5 US.
You could probably get on the 162 regular width Assassin Pro, if you wanted to. Only if you have quite a straight back binding angle and/or you like to really rail your carves, then the wide might work better. If you know you prefer wides, then the 163W still definitely an option though, regardless.
YES Standard 162 is even wider than the 163W Assassin Pro – at the inserts especially. From measuring other sizes of the two I would predict the following:
Assassin Pro 162: 265mm at the inserts
Assassin Pro 163W: 273mm at the inserts
Standard 162: 280mm at the inserts
Standard 159: 275mm at the inserts
Given how wide the Standard is, you could almost size down to 159 if you wanted to. But if you know the kinds of widths and lengths you like to ride, then the original sizes all good, of course.
What up Nate? I’m looking for an upgrade on my current setup. Bought a yes basic circa 2011 and rode it for ~40 days living in Snowmass and learning to bomb the grooms. Moved backed to Texas and got maybe 6 days in six years. Flash forward I moved to NM and the snow has been epic this year, close to 20 days this season with happy of it in pow. I think I’m progressing quite well and have spent most of my time in the trees this year. Only terrain I’ve stayed out of is double black tree glades as they’re a bit steep and tight. Could maybe push those types of lines if I had someone towing the line for me. Looking for a board that will progress with me for trees, side hits, good and pow but stable and carvy for off piste chunder. I’m attracted to the standard cause it seems stiffish with a damp but lively ride. Afraid to go with something too freeride because im afraid of something too unforgiving as an intermediate rider.l or something that is too slow turning which might get me in trouble in the trees. Any thoughts? BTW I’m 5’11 160-165 riding some older (2012) Burton cartels and a new 11 Burton swath.
Hey Zack
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would work well for what you’re describing. I have heard some people say they’ve found the Standard to be not that fast edge-to-edge, but everyone I’ve heard say that are riding size 9 boots. With 10s, I didn’t find this at all on the 156 Standard. It’s sizing down a little from what I would usually ride for an all-mountain board, but IMO the Standard is best sized down a little unless you have bigger boots. I definitely found it a lively board and edge-to-edge whilst not lightning I found to be fast – and perfectly good in trees. Never going to be like a short/wide, powder board in trees – but then those have other limitations, but pretty good.
With your specs, I think the 156 is your best bet too (I’m 6’0″ and 185lbs) – so a little bigger – but smaller feet – so with 11s and your specs I think 156 is the best option and should work well, IMO.
Certainly since you like to ride powder, trees but still want to carve and do side-hits, and are at a roughly intermediate level, then I think something like the Standard would work well. To check out some other options, you could look at:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Or you could look at something more powder/tree specialized, like the YES 420. But usually I would only go for something like that as part of a quiver, rather than as a daily driver.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I love your reviews, but now I have a hard time deciding on my new board. I have been snowboarding only for a couple of seasons but progressed really fast and ride everywhere (black diamond, …). I have been skiing all my life and I am an experienced, aggressive skier. This year in snowboard lessons, they put me in Intermediate-advanced classes. I would consider myself a low to mid-level intermediate. Anyways, I was looking at your reviews for the Yes Standard 2019 (162) and the Capita Mercury 2019 (161). I love speed, carving and powder. I have little interest in freestyle. I am 6’0, 2015-220 lbs and size 10.5 K2 Maysis.
Am I looking at the right boards (and size)? Or would you recommend anything else? Any advice to help me decide would be appreciated.
Hi JP
Thanks for your message.
Looking at the sizes and the fact that you are mostly focused on speed, carving and powder, I would say that the Mercury 161 is the best bet for you.
For the Standard, if you were to go for that, I’d probably be leaning towards the 159, just because of the width. Width-wise, the Mercury 161 is likely to be around 268mm at the inserts (based on measuring a different size), which is a good width for 10.5s, IMO. The Standard 162 on the other hand is likely to be around 280mm at the inserts, which is quite wide for 10.5s, IMO. Even the 159 is likely to be 275mm at the inserts, which is still on the wider side, but since you would be dropping length, that would compensate for that. But then you’re loosing effective edge, which is going to effect stability at speed and carving. Powder-wise, you’d be fine, because the extra width gives you back that surface area, but for carving and speed, I think the Mercury 161 would work better. And it’s also more what I would describe as all-mountain bordering on freeride, whereas the Standard is more all-mountain bordering on freestyle.
The Standard probably better for low intermediate than the Mercury – so the Mercury would be a slightly steeper learning curve, IMO, but overall would suit what you’re describing and your specs the best, IMO.
Another option would be the Jones Explorer 162 – which is similar to the Mercury in that it’s all-mountain bordering on freeride, but still good for a solid intermediate rider.
Also, anything like the NS West, Jones Mountain Twin, Niche Story, Nitro Team Gullwing, those types of boards would also work, and be a little more low intermediate friendly, but I think the Mercury would be a good fit – and since you’re progressing fast and have aggressive skiing experience behind you, the Mercury becomes more doable for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much Nate,
I couldn’t find the Mercury in 161, but I managed to get a really good deal on the Standard 159 … maybe that’s better for now for a smoother progression. I paired it with the 2019 Flux XF after reading your reviews. I hope to get everything before the weekend …
I will keep an eye on the Mercury for next year.
I enjoy your reviews and the way you normalize it, it makes it really easy to compare everything… which I’m sure was the objective. Good job!
Take care.
Cheers,
JP
You’re very welcome JP. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get your new setup out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi there Nate,
I am 5’10, 210 lbs, size 9.5 Burton boots. Intermediate to advanced rider for sure. I have been riding a Ride Fuel from like 2003 that was a 156 cm. I rode that thing from 5’6 and 150 lbs to 5’10 and 210 lbs. I consider myself to have strong legs, and be very athletic (even if a little pudgy 😉 ), so I was able to manage in all conditions from powder to groomers and the park (although the board was pretty awful in the park and had no flex). I also like to ride powder and the park primarily, but definitely bomb the groomers when the powder is fleeting. Anyway, I sold it (hooray me) after all these years, and now want a new all-mountain board. The Yes Standard looks like a good option for me. I am thinking 156 (I don’t want to lose the responsiveness by going too long, or too wide with 9.5 feet), but all of the recommendations say 159 due to my weight. Basically, I think I can make up for the weight issue and ride a 156 (seeing as I rode the 156 Ride Fuel all these years), but I wanted your take on it. What say you as far as size? If you think this is a bad fit, you have another recommendation for me as far as a board for all-mountain?
Hi Kirk
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would usually say go longer than 156 for your specs. The Standard is a board you can size down on a little though, IMO. Just whether 156 is sizing down too much or not. You would certainly be fine on the 159, but that is probably getting a bit wide for 9.5s. One thing with going for the 156 is that it will feel softer flexing than it feels for someone lighter riding it. So whether or not that makes it feel too soft is hard to say. The other thing is for stability at speed, given that it probably has less effective edge than your old 156 Fuel, which was in all likelihood all camber, being that old. If that’s the case then the effective edge was probably longer, so even though the length of the 156 is the same, probably the Standard is a little shorter in that sense. Being a bit wider, I don’t think you’d have too many issues with float in powder on the 156 if you’re on the slam backs.
If you want to go a little longer and narrower, then you could look at some of the options here:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Looking for some perspective on sizing for a complete setup of board, boots, and bindings. I am strongly considering the Yes Standard for an all mountain board. I’m 6′, 180-185#s with a 28cm foot length. It seems like I fit into the 11s best for boot size. I am still experimenting with my binding angle but will always be at least +12/-6. if not greater.
BOARD: Yes Standard 156 or 159. Leaning towards the 159.
BOOTS: I’m considering the Vans Infuse and Adidas Tactical ADV for boots.
BINDINGS: Looking at the Burton Cartels, Union Strata, and possibly the Union Falcor.
Thanks your help!
Hi Stefan
Thanks for your message. I think you’ve definitely got it narrowed down to some good options for a setup there, and in terms of boots and bindings, everything that you’ve got there would match the Standard well, IMO. It’s just a matter of fine tuning your decision. But you can’t really make a bad choice out of those, IMO.
BOARD: Size-wise, it’s a close call between the 156 and 159. You are very similar specs to me, but with slightly longer feet/boots. (I am 6’0″, 185lbs, 27.3cm feet, size 10 boots). I really like the 156, but with longer feet/boots, the 159 becomes more appealing. Also, I like to ride quite a bit of freestyle and in the trees, so going a little shorter is preferable for me. I like to ride fast sometimes too, but I’m not a speed demon compared to some. If you do less freestyle/trees and favor speed & carving, then I would go 159. But if you do a fair bit of freestyle/trees, like to slow it down sometimes and play around, then the 156 becomes more appealing. The 156 will be fine for 11s though, so if you did want to go for that size, width shouldn’t be an issue. Overall, I would be leaning towards 159 for you, but you could certainly ride the 156, depending no style preferences. Also to consider, if you are a more intermediate rider, then the 156 comes more into play. If you’re more advanced, then I would be leaning even more towards 159.
BOOTS: Both good choices, both match the Standard well, IMO. If you have wider feet and/or or higher arches, then go Tactical ADV. Otherwise it’s 50/50.
BINDINGS: Really can’t go wrong with any of those, IMO. Only thing with the Falcor and Strata is that you would need to go large. Union bindings are quite long in the baseplate/footbed. I don’t think they would be too big for the Standard (156), but that would be the only thing to think about. I ride Medium Union, so I’m not sure of the measurements of the Larges, but the footbed on the Strata Medium is 25.8cm and the footbed on the Falcor Medium is 25.2cm. For reference the footbed on the Cartel Large is 25cm (when fully extended). So definitely no worries with that one being too big. The upside to the longer baseplate of the Union’s though is that (assuming their not too big) they do provide good leverage for better response (IMO). Between the Strata and the Falcor, I would be leaning towards Falcor if you prefer to ride fast/carve a lot and leaning towards Strata if you have more freestyle in your arsenal. The Cartel is closer to the Strata in that sense, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate. I added the Union Atlas into the mix but it looks like the 2020 Atlas will have a slight update on the foot bed. and there are no good sales going on at the moment. Any idea what the base plate length is on the Atlas? Ultimately, I am thinking I am going to go with the Burton Cartels that I can get on sale. I went with the Adidas Tactical ADV size 11. Would you recommend going with the Medium or Large Cartels?
Hi Stefan
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t measured the Atlas unfortunately.
For Cartels with a Tactical ADV 11, you really could go both and be fine.
I think you would fit in a medium if you wanted to. I ride a Vans 10 on medium Burton’s and from what I’ve measured the Tactical ADV is another half size more reduced than that – and the Vans are already pretty reduced. So, if the Tactical ADVs are like a 10.5 of my boot you shouldn’t have any issues – I’m not maxing anything out in medium Burton bindings.
One advantage of going large, however, is that it will give you more leverage, with that longer base plate.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I would also appreciate some sizing advice.
Height: 5’9″
Weight: 178lb
Stance: 21″
Boot: 9.5 US
Currently have a Ride Agenda 158cm which has been awesome. Looking at this board as an upgrade and seems perfect as an all mountain board. Size wise I am struggling between either 153cm or 156cm
Cheers
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message. I though I had answered your email, but it seems it got buried in there – easier to manage comments here than in my email – but whilst I was transferring the website, I had heaps in the email. I had read yours and though I replied but just checked now and realized I haven’t. Apologies for that.
With your specs you could definitely ride either for this board. I wouldn’t normally say as short as 153 for you, but with this board you can certainly go shorter. That said, I am still leaning towards 156 for you. It’s going to be a wider ride for 9.5s, but you could be riding up to 158, 159 for a different all-mountain board, so 156 is already sizing down a bit. The 21.5″ reference stance should work for you too (though the 20.5″ stance on the 153 is also close to your 21″). One of the big reasons I’m leaning towards 156 over 153, is that on the 153 you would be dropping quite a bit in terms of effective edge. Going 156 keeps means you don’t drop as much in terms of effective edge.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Great site, I’ve enjoyed it and it’s very helpful, keep up the good work!
Would like your opinion on a board and set-up. I’m 5’10” – 5’11”, 174lbs and size 10.5US (Vans Infuse that I’m thinking of buying as well) foot length is 27cm-27.5cm.
I snowboard in the north east, so Icy conditions, and want a board with good hold on ice. I don’t touch the park but will fool around on bumps and jumps on the side of a trail. I go everywhere else on the mountain, primarily groomers where I like to carve and trees . I love powder and want a board that is good in powder for those odd days we get some. I also venture on moguls when the conditions are right (not too Icy). Finally I want to learn to butter (but it’s not a priority). I feel I need an all-mountain – freeride set-up.
I’m getting all new gear and am thinking of:
Board: YES Standard 2019 (153 or 156)
Bindings: Burton Genesis X or Genesis (I want a binding that can use the boards set-back for odd powder days)
Boots: Vans Infuse size 10.5US – I like that I can play with the stiffness
I’m open to any other suggestions on board, binding and boot, if you have any…
Thanks,
Peter
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
That sounds like a great setup for what you’re describing. I wouldn’t say that the Standard is all-mountain to freeride. It’s more in the middle or slightly on the freestyle side of all-mountain. However, it still sounds like it would suit what you’re trying to do – and has those slam back inserts for powder days. I think the 156 would be a great size for you.
And the Genesis X and Vans Infuse would work well with the Standard, IMO. The Genesis too, though it’s just bordering on being a touch too soft.
You could also look at the Niche Story, which is also great in icy conditions but a bit more directional, bit more freeride Oriented. It would be a weight up between 156 and 159 for that one, leaning towards 156. Or the Rossignol One LF, which I would say go 159 for that one.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the advice. I had the niche story and Rossi one lf on my short list also. I would be happy with any of them. Of the 3 standard, story or one lf, which board in your opinion held an edge the best on ice?
Hi Peter
Really hard to say without having ridden all 3 back to back in icy conditions. And they are all really good in those conditions (and none invincible in those conditions either!), in my experience. I would say the Story on instinct is perhaps top of the list. I did ride the One LF and Standard back to back and maybe just the One LF. So, if I had to hazard a guess, I would say Story, One LF, Standard, but they’re all very close, IMO.
Thanks again. For them niche story 156 Should I put union Falcor size M and vans infuse 10.5? Would that work together? I will let you know how it goes.
Hi Peter
That sounds like a really good match for the Story. Technically Union Mediums only go up to 10 but I would imagine that the Infuse 10.5 would work well with the medium, being lower profile. And Union used to rate their mediums up to size 11, but changed their sizings, so for Infuse 10.5s I would say you’d be fine with mediums. And because the Falcors have quite a long baseplate, I would say medium is a better fit for the board compared to going with the Large.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking for an aggressive All-Mountain board for both hard/icy and powder snows, but not park.
From your reviews, my top picks are Yes Standard, Burton Custom X, Never Summer West so. But it gets more complicated when it comes to length. Could you please help recommend the right length for these three boards?
I’m 5’8, 154lbs, shoe size 9. Thank you so much!
Best regards,
Ray
Hi Ray
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for those 3, I would say:
Standard: 153 or 151 – but since you want something aggressive, probably 153
Custom X: 154, or you could go 156 but I’d be leaning towards 154 for you, for this one
West: 154 or 156, but again, I’d be leaning towards 154. But if you were going to ride a 156, then I’d do it with this one before I did it with the Custom X
If you want other options too, I would also look at the YES PYL, GNU Mullair and Lib Tech Ejack Knife for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate. I wear an 11.5′ boot, I’m 175 lbs. and 5′ 10″. In my case, what size of the Yes Standard board would you recommend?
Hi David
It’s a weigh up between the 156 and 159 for you, IMO. I like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs, 10 boot) but I would usually ride 159 for this type of board, but with 10s and being on the wider side, I like to size down a little. With 11.5s, the sizing down because of width isn’t really a thing for you. Also, I like to throw in quite a bit of freestyle and like to be able to slow things down and play around, and like riding in the trees, so going a little shorter anyway, otherwise I would probably ride more like a 160, 161 for an all-mountain board (with a more narrow width).
Width-wise, I think you would get on the 156, which is still relatively wide, but it might be pushing it a little if you ride with a very straight back binding angle. But if you ride with a reasonable amount of angle on your back foot, and like to ride a bit of freestyle and/or are more of an intermediate rather than advanced rider, then the 156.
But if you don’t ride freestyle much or at all, and are an advanced rider, then I would go with the 159 for you.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
Wrote a quick comment/question yesterday but I don’t think it published. Really appreciate the time an effort you put into contributing to the community and helping folks like myself make informed decisions.
I used to hit Jackson once a year, but hadn’t been on a mountain for a decade until Breckenridge this year. I grew up skateboarding and surfing, so it was easy to get back into the swing. With plans to make more regular trips again, it’s about time I stop renting and get myself into an all-mountain.
I like bombing, and don’t spend much time in the park, but I’d like to start hitting more jumps. Ideally looking for a board that can go fast but still something playful that i can slow down and pop around on. Hit the sides with some maneuverability, without being squirrely.
I’m 39, 6’1″, 155-160lbs with a 10.5-11 boot.
I am considering:
Jones Ultra Mountain Twin
Never Summer West
Yes. Standard
Slash Brainstorm
Jones UMT is at the top of my list right now and was considering the 158W for maneuverability and still accommodate my boot. (planning on Union Force and Adidas Tactical)
Your thoughts would be much appreciated – board, size, etc.
Thanks,
John
Hi John
Further to my other reply. I think the Force and Tactical ADV would be a great match for the Mountain Twin, West, Standard and Brainstorm. But if you were to go UMT, then I would look at a stiffer boot and binding setup. But as I said before, if you’re like me, you may not get on with the UMT in terms of when you want to be able to slow down and play around a bit.
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your replies. Seriously very helpful. Went ahead and ordered the Yes. Standard 156, Adidas Tactical ADV 10.5 and Union Force bindings (L). Super pumped. My preference was for the Jones MT 158W but wasn’t having much luck finding it. Ordered a 157 just to check it out. Thanks again!
Ho John
Awesome that you have your gear sorted. Sounds like a great setup to me! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, thanks for your work and taking the time to provide the community the info we’re looking for.
I’m looking to buy my first board. An all mountain. I definitely like to charge but also like playing around.
I’m considering:
Jones Ultra Mountain
Yes. Standard
Never Summer West
I’m a little stuck on the Jones Ultra but am concerned about its stiffness.
I’m 39yo, 6’1” 155-160lbs 10.5-11 boot
And was considering the 158w
Any guidance on board and size would be super appreciated.
Thanks!
John
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Personally I didn’t feel the Ultra Mountain Twin (UMT) for playing around. It’s a great board for charging on. Really fun in that sense, but I didn’t like it for slowing down and playing around. Since you like that, I would say regular Mountain Twin over the UMT. But also the Standard and West are great for that too, so I would recommend those over the UMT.
Between the West, Standard and MT, I would say that the West is the loosest feeling, but it’s still not overly loose. They’re all quite stable feeling, without feeling “locked-in”.
Size wise, I would say:
~ UMT or MT: 158W probably. You might be able to get away with 157, depending on the boot (if it’s a 10.5 and you ride with +15/-15 binding angles or similar and/or have low profile boots. With 11s or 10.5s with a straighter back binding angle in a non-low-profile boot, I would say 158W)
~ Standard: 156
~ West: 157W (or 156/159, depending on boots, as per above)
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First of all thank you for the many board reviews. They are really helpfull to me. (and i’m sure to many others).
Hope i’m not annoying you too much with another sizing dilemma:
I’m doubting between the Yes standard 2019 156 or the 159.
My stats: 6.3 feet tall, 180 lbs and foot size US 11.5
I ride a lot of groomers and powder, and i also like to butter and jump a lot.
I always ride in Duckstance 15-15.
The 156 is currently for sale in Europe, (100€ discount)
Do you think the 156 would fit me? My main concerns are that my boots won’t fit on the board and the width stance might be a little to small.
Hope you can help me out here.
Big up from Belgium,
Fiel
Hi Fiel
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be the best length for you, for this board. If you had smaller sized boots, then sizing down to the 156 makes sense, but with 11.5s, the 159 won’t be too wide for you.
You could still ride the 156, if you’re wanting to ride something shorter and it should be fine width wise for 11.5s, given that you ride +15 -15. It will be on the narrow side of what you can get on, but as long as you don’t have long profile boots, should be OK.
Overall though, I think the 159 would be the best option for you. The 159 will be better in powder, more stable at speed and better for long wide carves. The 156 would be a little more maneuverable at slower speeds, but the 159 should be maneuverable enough for you with 11.5s anyway, so I don’t think that’s a big concern. The 156 would be better for butters and for smaller jumps, ollies etc.
Also, like you say, the stance width might feel too narrow for you at 6’3″. The reference stance is 545mm (21.5″). You can extend that out to 586mm (23.1″) but personally I like to stay on or close to the reference stance, whenever I can help it. The 570mm (22.5″) stance on the 159 is probably a better stance width for your height, though everyone has their personal preferences. The board is made to be ridden with a narrower than average stance width. I felt comfortable on the 545mm reference stance on the 156 (I’m 6’0″), where I’d usually ride more like 560 to 580. But with 3″ on me, you might want something a little wider.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate ,
I have to say that your review made me order a Yes Standard 156 , even if I dodn’t intend to change my deck this year . I paired it with Burton Malavita (M) bindings and now I am in doubt about boots purchase (9,5 size) . I am 180lbs / 5.8.
I ride 90% grooms /piste in resorts and I am wondering which boot is suitable for me , Burton Ruler (flex4) or Burton Photon(flex 6) . According with charts Ruler is more all mountain orientated , and since am I an intermediate rider with 10-14 day /year . I am afraid that Photon can be too stiff for me . Can you help me with a professional advice ?
Thank you in advance and keep up with the good reviews !
Hi TNT
I would say that the Ruler is a 5/10 flex and the Photon an 8/10 flex. So I would be leaning more towards the Ruler for you between those 2. Since the Standard has a flex feel (by my feel) of 6/10 (though YES rate it 7/10 for flex, I don’t feel it as that stiff), then I would be looking at boots with a flex rating around 6/10 or 7/10.
So, between those 2, and at an intermediate level, I would recommend going with the Ruler.
Other Burton options (assuming you’re wanting to stick with Burton), would be the Swatch and Imperial. You could also go Ion and SLX, though they are expensive options and the Swath, Swath Boa and Imperial would be better intermediate options as well.
Also check out the following for more options:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’ve have been reading through all these comments and I’m still not sure what size to get.
I’m 5’6 at 140lbs and have boots with size 7.5.
I know there is someone at the very beginning, who has basically almost the same specs and you recommended the 151 to him.
But as I’m leaning more towards powder and groomer ripping, I’m thinking about ordering the 153 to have more float in pow and more stability on the groomers.
Does that make sense to you?
Or do you think, that stepping up one size will be too stiff for me?
Would it still be possible with my weight to butter around on the rockered nose/tail?
In the end I’m just not sure, whether the 151 will give me enough float in pow to enjoy a full day in the fresh stuff…
You see – I’m pretty lost.
Please share your thoughts with me 😉
Hi Manu
Thanks for your message.
I would still go with the 151. I would actually be debating between 149 and 151 for you, for this board. If you were leaning towards more freestyle type riding, then I would say go 149, but I think 151, given that you want it to be good in powder, is a good option for you. I don’t think you’ll have issues with float on the 151, with your specs. Noting, of course, that you’ll get the best float out of this board in the “slam back” inserts.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the informative reviews!
I’m getting back into snowboard after a 10-year hiatus and could use some help selecting a board. I was an intermediate/ low advance rider back in the day. I’m looking for a fun all mountain board that can handle powder days (about 30% of the time). I will be riding with my wife and two kids (ages 8 & 5). While I occasionally go off on my own and seek out aggressive steep terrain, I spend most my time on the groomers herding my kids and ride more freestyle. I guess I’m looking for a board that can do it all and I’m leaning towards the Yes Standard.
Do you think the Standard is the choice? And are there any other boards that you would suggest?
I’m 5’8 and weigh 187lbs with a muscular build. I wear Burton Photons in a size 10. My stance is 22” (maybe a bit wide) with my front set @ 15 degrees and my back @ 0 degrees. My old board was 154 but I’m thinking I should be looking for something closer to a 156. I think the Standards 153 might be too small for my weight.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Joe
Hi Joseph
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard is a good option for you, based on what you’re describing. Certainly something all-mountain (aka do-it-all) is a good idea. For other options, check out:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But yeah, the Standard would definitely work for what your describing.
For you, I would go with the 156. I think that would be the right size for you taking into account all your specs and how you want to be riding. And with a 21.5″ reference stance, should suit what you’re used to well.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply and all your helpful info!
I spend last weekend enjoying my new YES. Standard. Appreciate your guidance on helping me select the perfect board.
TY!
Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for the update. Awesome to hear that you’re enjoying the Standard!
Hi Nate,
Great review and very useful comments!
I’m a small guy (5.4, 110lbs, 8.5 US boot) with an intermediate level (10+ yrs riding) getting used to faster runs all over the mountain, medium jumps and new tricks. I was looking for a stable board that could follow me everywhere with some directional profile for those powder days. I came across a few options like the Yes Standard, Yes Typo, or Ride Wildlife. All of these in their smaller size: 149 or 150. Even considered the Yes Basic in 146 but tried it and found it a bit too mellow and no directional. And the Jones Twin Sister, a women board but with maybe better sizing options.
I’m leaning towards the Standard 149 bc it fits my stance perfectly (19.5”) and have all of the above, but I’m concerned it would be a bit too wide for my feet or stiff to ride for my level (far from big airs).
What would you recommend?
Many thanks!
Hi Pablo
Thanks for your message.
Width-wise, I think the 149 would actually be fine for 8.5s, so in terms of width, I think you’re fine there.
Ordinarily, I would say that something more like 143cm would be a better length for you though. But if you’ve been used to riding boards more around that 149, 150 size, then the 149 should work fine. But I certainly wouldn’t go longer than that for your specs. And if the stance width is what you like, then that’s certainly a plus too.
The Twin Sister 143 (or 146), is also an option if you wanted to go for a shorter option. But if you’re used to and comfortable with boards around 149, then I think the Standard 149 could be a good option. Whilst YES rate it 7/10 for stiffness, I’ve never found it to feel quite that stiff (more like 6/10 to my feel). Being a little under the weight that you would usually ride for that length will make it feel a little stiffer though, but I don’t think it should be too stiff for your level overall. If the Basic felt too mellow, then it should be a good step up from that.
But if you’re worried about it being a bit too much, the Typo 149 would certainly be an option too – it’s probably around the same width as the Standard 149, but softer flexing. But just a touch stiffer than the Basic. And whilst it’s not majorly directional, it’s got a very slightly more directional feel than the Basic.
I would be weighing up between the 143 or 146 Twin Sister and the 149 Standard. And between those, it would depend on whether or not you’ve been used to/comfortable riding boards around that 149 range. If so, then I’d go Standard. If you’re used to riding smaller, then I would look at the Twin Sister.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate. It totally helps. I’m currently riding a 149 Rome Factory Rocket so used to that length. Although I’ve tried some boards on 146 and I surely feel good there too. Playful and faster edge to edge. When trying to go over, like 150 or 152, it definitely get things a bit tougher…
So I ended up going with a 149 Standard to see where it takes me. I believe it’s a solid option to progress plus it’s a great looking board! And if it’s not for me, well, at least I’d know what to do next!
Thanks for the tip, helped me deciding! Keep up the reviews and good advice. Cheers.
You’re very welcome Pablo.
If you think of it at the time, I’d love to hear how you get on with the Standard, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reviews. I’m strongly considering the Yes. Standard 2018/19 for its all-mountain abilities. I’m looking for confirmation that this is the right board for me, and trying to determine if a 156 or 159 would be best.
I’m 39 years old, have been riding for over 20 years – I’d say intermediate/advanced, and do a bit of everything. My favorite is powder days in the trees. I like a playful board with easy turning, butters, spins, etc. I enjoy jumps (but in my older age am avoiding the massive doubles in the park), but am not a fan of rails. I prefer a rocker, but want more edge hold than a typical rocker provides for the groomers and icy days. Most of my time is spent in the trees when possible so I need something that’s responsive and reliable. But I also love to bomb full speed down a steep hill every now and then just to feel alive.
I’m about 5’ 10.5”, weigh around 185, and wear a US size 10-10.5 boot. I currently ride a Sierra Reverse Crew from 2011, 162cm – which is too big but I can still ride it well.
Let me know if I’ve found my ideal board, and what size would be best for me. Thanks.
Hi Bryan
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 would be a great size for your specs/what you’re describing.
And overall, I think the Standard (in the 156) would be a great option for what you’re describing.
The only thing would be that you certainly feel the camber more than the rocker, so if you wanted something that feels the rocker a little more, and has that slightly more playful feel, then you could also consider:
~ Never Summer West – not as good in hard/icy as Standard (IMO) but still good
~ GNU Rider’s Choice – as good in hard/icy, but not as good at speed or in powder
But that’s certainly not to say that the Standard is unplayful, or has a heavy camber feel, but if you wanted a little more playful/rockery feel, then those might be a little more suitable. I did find the Standard easy to butter and spin.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate!
The other board I was looking into is the Arbor Element, which uses their ‘system rocker’ technology. That design appears to still provide a nice rocker feel, while still having the ‘grip tech’ contact points that helps get an edge in on the harder surfaces.
Let me know if you think that might give me a little better all mountain performance for my style of riding. Or if I may want to still go with the Yes. Standard.
Thanks again, your feedback is very helpful.
Hi Bryan
I think the Element ticks most boxes – and has better edge hold than most all-rocker boards. But still not the same edge-hold as something like the Standard – and not (IMO) as good at speed. So, I think it would be an improvement in terms of edge-hold, but maybe not a massive improvement in other areas (without being able to say for sure, as I’ve never ridden the Sierra Reverse Crew). But yeah, would give you that rocker feel, with a bit more edge-hold.
Just to throw another option in the mix – the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker might be a good option for what you’re describing. It’s not a board that I’ve ridden, so can’t say first hand. But based on specs and what others say, could be a good fit for you.
Hey Nate,
first of all thank you for your fantastic reviews. They really helped me pinning down my selection.
I am torn between the Arbor coda Rocker and the Yes standard. Both seem to be really good boards.
I’ve been riding a Burton custom flying V (154) for the last 6ish years and love the playfulness and agility of it. The only reason I’m upgrading is that i want something a bit stiffer and more freeride orientated.
Which one would you recommend?
Thank you in advance and Happy Riding!
(For reference: 177cm tall, ~62kg light, been riding for about 14 years)
Hi Finn
Thanks for your message.
In terms of stiffness, I would say the following, in my experience:
~ Custom Flying V: 5.5/10
~ Standard: 6/10
~ Coda Rocker: 7/10
Just for reference.
The Standard is a more stable feeling board, in comparison to the playfulness of the flying V – largely down to the camber between the feet – so whilst it’s not a huge amount stiffer (IMO), it is still less playful/loose overall.
I would say that both the Standard and Coda Rocker are on the more all-mountain-freestyle end of all-mountain, being that they are both designed with a centered stance. The Standard you can setback in the “slam back” inserts, which makes it a little more freeride, but overall I wouldn’t say they are the most freeride oriented all-mountain boards. But if you’re looking for something more stable/precise and less forgiving/playful they are that, compared to the Custom Flying V.
If you want something more geared towards freeride, but still all-mountain, then there a few options (like the NS West, Jones Mountain Twin, Niche Story, Slash Brainstorm, Rossignol One LF and Nitro Team Gullwing – or something like the Jones Explorer or Capita Mercury). See:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Size-wise, something around 153, 154 would be a good length, IMO.
For the Coda Rocker I would go 154.
For the Standard, probably 153, but if you can let me know your boot size, and then we can look at the width too.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hey Nate,
Your dedication is top notch. I have read just about every comment and am still on the fence between the 2019, 156 and 159. If you could please put my mind at ease… I’m 6ft, 155lb and rock size US12 tm2 xlt’s. My angles are usually about 18/-6. I have to order the board online and like others want to make sure my boots will fit.
Stay sharp
Ed
Hi Ed
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I would be looking at 156. With 12s, however, it might be pushing it in terms of width with +15/-6 angles. The 159 would be fine, IMO, width-wise. The 156 might work for the width, but there’s some risk it would be too narrow. If you really like to rail your carves, then I would play it safe and go for 159.
Hope this gives you more to go off
This thread has been very useful and I also wanted to share the info I have.
I’m 192 cm, 195 lbs, size 10.5 (US) feet, and I use 10.5 K2 Darko boots and large Union Force bindings. My boots are 33 cm long along the bottom; I know they’re the opposite of having a reduced footprint but I like how they feel so I want to stick with them. Right now I use +12 -6 binding angles but I’m still playing around with things, not sure what I like. I’m a beginner but so far I’m progressing well. I don’t care about tricks, I just want to do all-mountain riding.
Based off my own calculations and YES’ recommendation I bought a 2019 Yes Standard in 159. It measures 27.7 cm edge-to-edge width under the center front binding, which seems perfect to me given my 28.5 cm feet and shallow binding angles. With my boots on the board I have 1.5 cm toe overhang and 2.0 – 2.5 cm heel overhang. I did consider the 162 but I’m still in the 160 – 210 lbs weight range of the 159, I like the idea of more maneuverability with a shorter board, and I worried that a 162 would be too wide relative to my bare feet. BTW I love how light this board feels!
The crazy thing is that I measured a Neversummer West 164W in the shop and it only had a width under center front binding of 27.4 cm. For that board I probably would’ve been looking at the 160W (there wasn’t one there to measure) which would’ve been even narrower. My current board has been a 2018 Process Flying V 159 with 25.5 cm waist width and about 26.8 cm under the binding inserts.
I haven’t had a chance to ride the Standard but I’m excited to try. At home strapped into the board it doesn’t seem hard to get on edge. I’m looking forward to how easy it should be to flat base it.
Hi DTM
Thanks so much for the info. Really helpful for others to know. That’s roughly what I though the width at the inserts would be on the 159 (based on measuring the 156) but it’s good to get confirmation there.
The Standard has that mid-bite – which makes the width at the inserts wider than normal compared to waist width. Never Summer boards, from the ones that I’ve measured tend to have a smaller than average difference between the waist and the inserts.
If you think of it at the time, let me know what you think of the board, once you’ve had a chance to get it on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate
Great Review, I am thinking of getting a board. I’ve done a tone off research and I think the Yes – Standard would be a good fit for me.
I would say I am a beginner-Intermediate depending on definitions. I like to ride switch. I am not a park rat but I do plan to learn some basic tricks.
11.5-12uk boot size, Weight 210lbs, 6ft2.
I was thinking 159 for the standard.
Given all the above would you say that board and size would work for me?
Thanks
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would say if you’re more intermediate than beginner, then the Standard could work for you.
For your specs, I would actually be leaning towards the 162. And I think the 162 is going to be a better call for your boot size. For UK12s the 159 might be a little too narrow. With low profile boots and +15/-15 or similar binding angles you might squeeze onto it, but the width of the 162 would be a safer call, IMO.
I would put you on something around 164 as an