Snowboarding Profiles

YES Standard Snowboard Review

Last Updated: by

Share0
Tweet0
Pin0

Yes Standard SnowboardHello 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 2019

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: 92.7/100

Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards

Out of the 35 men’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:

  • The average score was 80.4/100
  • The highest score was 92.7/100
  • The lowest score was 64.0/100
  • The average price was $481 (USD)
  • The Standard ranked 1st out of 35!

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: 

Ability Level Intermediate to Expert

Flex: 

Snowboard Flex 6

Feel:

snowboard feel stable

Turn Initiation: 

Medium-Fast

 Edge-hold:

Edge hold Icy Snow

Camber Profile: 

Hybrid Camber (3-4-3 Rocker-Camber-Rocker)

Shape: 

Directional Volume Twin

Setback Stance: 

Centered (with slam back stance option)

Base: 

Sintered

Weight: 

Normal

Sizing

Length (cm) 

149

151

153

156

159

162

Waist Width (mm)

245

248

253

258

263

268

Rec Rider Weight (lb)

115-155

125-165

135-175

145-185

155-195

160-200+

Rec Rider Weight (kg)

50-70

55-75

60-80

65-85

70-90

80-100+

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

YES Standard 2019 ReviewO.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.

YES Standard Snowboard Review

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.

FACTOR

rating (OUT OF 5)

contribution to final score

Powder

3.5

10.5/15

Carving/Turning

4.0

12/15

Speed

4.0

12/15

Uneven Terrain

3.5

10.5/15

Switch

4.0

8/10

Jumps

4.5

9/10

Jibbing

3.0

6/10

Pipe

4.0

8/10

TOTAL after normalizing

92.7/100

Overall the 2019 YES Standard is the same in most respects to the 2018 model, but with a lighter core - which can only be a good thing. 

It’s 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

YES Standard Snowboard ReviewIf 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.

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.

My Top 10 Men's All-Mountain Snowboards

Comments

  1. Hey Nate,

    I was just wondering how much you weigh?

    I am gonna buy this board but can’t decide what length. I would normally go with a 156 but it sounds like going shorter is doable with the wider dimensions. I weigh 165-170. I’m concerned about still getting good float in deep snow and stability landing in deep snow with the 153. But want this to be my do everything board and still fun and playful on groomer days so if i can get away with a 153 that would be awesome.

    Cheers

    Reply

    • Hi Andrew

      I’m currently 180 – and was around that when I demoed the Standard. You could possibly go down to the 153cm but I think the 156cm would still work for you. But if you can let me know your height and boot size as well, then I could more accurately recommend a size.

      Keep in mind that the wider widths only apply to the 2018 model of this board. The 2017 model had different waist widths. For the 2017 model I would either ride the 156W or 158 and possibly even the 159W but for the 2018 model I definitely prefer the 156. For you the 156 or 153 for 2018 model but I’d say at least 156 for the 2017 model – but if you can let me know your height and boot size I can more accurately recommend something for you.

      Reply

      • Cheers for getting back to me so quick. I’m 5’10 and where a US 9.

        And ill be getting the 2018 model. The 2017 seems to be sold out pretty much everywhere in a 156.

        Reply

        • Hi Andrew

          I think you could get along with the 153cm. You’ll something in the way of float in powder compared to the 2018 156 for sure but you’ll gain some playfulness – and that extra little bit of width will add back some of that surface area for powder. If you would normally have gone for a 156cm, then compared to the 2017 156 you actually add 3mm of width to the waist compared to that model. I think this will make it comparable in terms of float to the 2017 156cm – maybe not quite as much float but certainly more than the 2017 154cm.

          And with that shorter length you’ll get the advantage of that playfullness that you still want out of your board. I think the 156cm would still work but it’s on the wide side for size 9s and you’ll loose some agility because of that extra width. the 258cm width I found was fine (size 10s) but I wouldn’t go any wider – and bringing my length down (I’d normally ride 158-159cm for an all mountain board) offset the width to a large degree.

          So for your stats I think going to 153cm would work well in the same way.

          Hope this helps.

          Reply

  2. Hey Nate,

    I was thinking about purchasing this board as well but I’d like to get your opinion on what size would be best. I was looking at the 161W or the 159W for the 2017 one or the 156 for the 2018. I’m 6 ft and about 180-185 lbs but I have a size 11.5 boot which makes it tricky. What would you recommend?

    Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Patrick

      Thanks for your message.

      You’re a similar height and weight to me and I would go 156 for the 2018 and 158 for the 2017. But I have size 10s. I do like my boards slightly on the shorter side. I think for you the 159 if going 2018 and the 159W if getting 2017.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  3. Hi Nate,

    I am also looking to purchase this board. I have been looking at the Yes Standard 2018 153 and am wondering if this will be the right size for me. I’m 5’10” weigh 168 and take a US 10.5 boot. I’ve been riding a 152 Salomon with a waist width of approx 245mm for the past 4 years.

    Troy

    Reply

    • Hi Troy

      Thanks for your message.

      Usually I would say something around a 157cm to 158cm for your height/weight and for an all-mountain style of riding but with the new sizings for the YES Standard, you can definitely go shorter with the wider widths. So I wouldn’t go longer than 156 for that board.

      And I think the 153 is definitely worth considering too. The reason, I would also consider the 153cm for you is that is because, a. you’re used to riding a 152, b. you’re to used to riding a narrow 152 and c. the 156 is the size I would ride for the 2018 model (and I’m a bit heavier at 180-ish lbs)

      So, I think it’s definitely between the 153 and 156. And I would be leaning towards the 153 for you, given all the factors, but it’s close. Either way, I think you will appreciate the extra bit of surface area of a slightly longer/wider board.

      The 245mm waist on your current board is quite narrow for 10.5s. Curious to know if you’ve experienced any toe or heel drag riding it?

      Reply

  4. Hi Nate,

    Liking your review on the Standard and I’m looking for an all mountain board for next season, but I’m a little worried about YES new sizing for 2018.
    I’m 6’1, approx 195lbs with size 12.5 boots, I’d say improving to lower level intermediate , adventureing into the tree line, a little off piste and hitting small natural kickers. Up till now I’ve preferred longer boards 161-163 and really found anything smaller a little unstable at the end of an aggressive steep turn (recently tried the Ride Berzerker 160w and Libtech Banana 159w and found them both too washy). I know that YES have purposely shortened their boards this year in line with the directional volumn profile, but do you think the 159 will work for my size, or fall short and have the same stability as the boards I’ve mentioned?

    Cheers Chris

    Reply

    • Hi Chris

      Thanks for your message.

      It’s tricky. I’d say that you probably want to be around that 159 to 162 size based on your height/weight/ability, so I would usually say that the 159 Standard would probably be ok. But if you’re experiencing a washy feeling on shorter boards then it’s definitely something to be careful of.

      With the Lib Tech – was that the Skate Banana or Attack Banana or Banana Magic? If it was the Skate Banana or Attack Banana both are pretty loose feeling boards in general – so I would say that’s not just about the sizing – they’re not known as stable feeling boards in general. The Berzerker on the other hand is stable feeling. But the the 160W is a bit narrower than the Standard 159. Probably a bit too narrow for your boot size too. The Standard 159 is better for your boot size. You probably want to go with something that’s at least 262mm at the waist for those boots.

      So it’s hard to say. The Standard is more stable in general than the Lib Tech Bananas and a little wider than the Berzerker 160W, so you might be ok on it.

      The safer bet though, if you’re worried about it, is to look at something else in the all-mountain category that might have something in a 161 to 163. Check out the list at the link below.

      >>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards

      In terms of stability I’d say that the YES Standard, Jones Mountain Twin, Rossignol One, YES Typo & Ride Wild Life are the most stable feeling on that list.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Hi Nat,

        Thanks for advice, yeah I don’t think I’ll risk the Standard without trying first.
        Do you you know if Slash are actually producing the Brainstorm for 2017/2018 and if so do you think 163w would be a better fit?

        Cheers C

        Reply

        • Hi Chris

          They have produced a 2018 Brainstorm – but they are slow bringing it out. Haven’t seen it available anywhere so far. But yeah, that would also be an option and I think the 163W would work for you.

          I think the 161W Rossignol One is also a good option.

          Or the 161W Ride Wild Life.

          Or the 163W YES Typo.

          Reply

  5. Hey Nate,

    I was looking at purchasing this board but I’m not too sure on sizing so was hoping to get your opinion also. I’m 6’3, ~175lbs and take a US 10.5-11 boot. I’m looking at the 159 or 156. I would usually go with the 159 but I’m not sure if this will be too wide for my boot size given the added width of the 2018 model. I’m also a little bit concerned about losing float going down to the 156. What would you recommend?

    I’ve also been looking at the Jones mountain twin 160, but at the moment am struggling to find any stock in Australia. How does this board compare with the Yes Standard? I’d say I’m an intermediate rider and would mainly be using it for powder, groomers and a bit of backcountry/trees (I’m not really into park stuff so thats not a priority).

    Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Ryan

      I’d say I’d normally put you on something around the 160 to 161 mark in terms of length. But with that extra width you can definitely come down a little from there. Meaning the 159 could be ok. But with that width, you might even want to come down a little more – but maybe not as far as 156. If there was a 158, I think I’d be leaning towards that – but you are kind of in between. Overall, I think the 159 is the better option, especially given that you’re not interested in the park.

      If it were for the 2017 model, the 159W would be a great fit.

      The Mountain Twin is a good option for what you’re describing also and the 160 is a good size for you – but hard to find for you by the sounds of it.

      There are other options too. You can check out some more options in the all-mountain category (which these two boards belong) at the link below, if you’d like.

      >>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Thanks lot for the reply Nate,

        Like you said I think I am sort of stuck in between the 156 and 159 sizes for the 2018 YES Standard model so I’ll try my luck finding a 2017 model. Just out of curiosity what would you say would be the minimum boot size suitable for the 258mm waist width of the 159W 2017 model?

        Did you find there to be a significant difference between the 2017 and 2018 YES Standard models in terms of performance in powder, edge hold etc?

        I may have found a 2017 Jones Mountain Twin 160 so if nothing else pops up I’ll likely end up grabbing that. My only concern is when I’ve snowboarded before I struggle a bit with tight turns when going at slower speeds through trees or over uneven terrain in steeper sections – how much difference is there between the manoeuvrability of the Jones mountain twin in comparison to the YES Standard?

        Cheers for the help!

        Reply

        • Hi Ryan

          I’d say that anything from 10.5 to 11.5 is a good size for 258mm. Sometimes a 10 as well. I sometimes ride boards with waist widths around 258mm that are fine and I have US10s. So you’d definitely be fine in terms of the waist on that. I think you’d be fine on the 2018 159 too, but it’s just at that borderline level of being too wide.

          I’d say the YES Standard is a bit quicker edge-to-edge than the Mountain Twin. It’s not a huge difference but noticeable, IMO. But the Mountain Twin isn’t slow edge-to-edge by any means.

          2017 and 2018 Mountain Twins are very similar – so going with the 2017 isn’t a problem.

          The 2018 and 2017 YES Standards are quite different. Those sizing differences change up the feel a bit. But that being said, the 2017 model is still a quality snowboard – I just preferred the 2018 model a little bit more. But for me the 156 in the 2018 model felt just right. AN example of a 258mm working with US10s. But I’d normally ride a bit longer for this style of board – so going down to the 156 but going wider worked well. For me if I went 2017 model, I’d go for the 158 (I’m 6ft and 180lbs).

          Reply

  6. Hi,

    Do the slam backs inserts work with mini disc bindings?

    I have nitro zeros and they only connect to 2 adjacent holes at a time as far as I can tell.

    Any ideas?

    Reply

    • Hi Jarod

      If your disc require that you need to be on 2 adjacent holes (2cm apart), then I don’t think they’ll go into the slam backs. I think the slam backs are 4cm back from what I can tell and can remember. They probably could have added another set of holes in between the slam backs and the regular set (I guess they couldn’t call them “slam backs” then! but it would be more practical!)

      Reply

  7. Hey Nate, glad to be finding this review and even the comment section. What size would you recommend for me who is around 5’8 and 146 lbs with boot size 8.5 (K2 Maysis). I found some 2017 model on sale and I was thinking about getting 154 in size initially but now I’m planning to get another shorter freestyle board for riding around park (Yes Jackpot at 149 or 152), so I’m thinking of getting the Standard longer in 156 for different experience roaming big mountains. Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hey Paul.

      Thanks for your message. I would definitely say 154cm if you were going to be using it as your do-it-all board and potentially even 152cm. But since you are planning on getting a smaller freestyle board, then maybe the 156cm is the better bet.

      For the Jackpot, the 149 would be my first choice for you for the park – particularly if you are going to have another board for big mountain riding.

      I guess the only thing going 149 and 156 is that there is a big contrast there. Contrast is definitely good but is that too much? Not sure. The other thing is – would you be using the 156 Standard only for big mountain riding or would you sometimes be on slower groomers, tighter spots, trees etc. In that case I would almost be leaning back towards the 154cm – it would still be long enough for you to do big mountain stuff with – but just that little bit more versatile.

      So I would say 149 Jackpot and 154 Standard – but if you only plan to do big mountain on the standard – or a large majority big mountain on it, then 156 for sure.

      This is all based on the 2017 model of the Standard. As you know the sizings have changed for the 2018 model. If you were to end up going for the 2018 model I would say to go with the 153cm. It’s a little shorter but it’s also wider.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  8. Hey, thanks for all the great reviews. I have a few questions as I am in the market for a new all mountain board. Some info about myself. I’m 5’10” 140lbs and wear a size 7.5 snowboard boot. I have 1 season of snowboarding under my belt with about 40 days of riding and I can do some blakc diamonds. My favorite runs are through trees, but I like to hit every part of the mountain including a little park.

    Would the Yes Standard be a good board for my needs or would it be a little to advanced? I’m also concerned the extra width might slow down my turns with a small boot size (Employee in a board shop mentioned this). I’m also looking at the Capita Mercury, Never Summer West, and the Jones Mountain Twin. For my needs, what board would be best? And I should stick with 153-154cm right? Thanks for the help!

    Reply

    • Hi Will

      In terms of width, if a board is to wide for you, it can definitely make a board turn slower/feel more lethargic. However, a lot of boards these days are designed to be a bit wider but to be ridden a bit shorter – the extra width makes up for the loss of surface area for going shorter and the shortened length (shorter boards are quicker turners) makes up for the extra width, in terms of maneuverability. So the YES Standard is one of these boards but only subtly so – there are boards made these days that you size down as much as 10cm for but the width is quite wide. The Standard isn’t that wide and you don’t need to size down that much – more like 3-ish cms down, I would say.

      I would put you at anything from a 152cm to 154cm in terms of length and between 240mm to 246mm waist width in terms of width.

      So for the Standard, I would go with the 151cm (248mm waist) if you were to choose this board. That way you’re going a little shorter. In this case you’re not going that much shorter – but it’s also not overly wide for you – wider than ideal, just. But taking a little bit of length off balances that out.

      I’d say this board would suit you really well from what you’re describing and I don’t think it would be too advanced either. It’s definitely not a beginner board but it’s intermediate and up – and even though you’ve only had one season, it sounds like you’re already at an intermediate level – some people take 4 season’s to rack up 40 days, so you’ve had a bit of time on snow now. So yeah, I think this board would be a great choice – just remember to size down to the 151cm.

      In fact, this board isn’t even that wide at the width compared to the other options you mentioned at similar lengths.

      For the others you mentioned, I would go for:

      Capita Mercury: 153cm (252mm waist)
      Never Summer West: 152cm (248mm waist)
      Jones Mountain Twin: 151cm (248mm waist)

      I think the Mercury doesn’t really have a good size for you, but the other 2 would work – as well as the Standard.

      The other reason I like the sound of a 151cm for you is that you like to ride trees. I find riding a board that’s slightly shorter is great for the trees.

      Hope this helps with your decision.

      Reply

      • One thing I forgot to mention. The Standard does cinch in at the waist a bit more than most boards – so the 151 will be a little wider at the inserts than the West 152 and the Mountain Twin 151, even though it has the same waist width.

        Reply

        • Thanks Nate, I really appreciate the detailed response! You definitely helped my decision, but I’m still having the trouble pulling the trigger. I’m sure I am just over thinking it and I’ll be happy no matter which board I got. I think I want to get the board with the quickest turn.

          One last question; If you had to have just 1 board in your quiver, which would you pick for my riding preferences? If it matters, my bindings are Burton Cartels. Thanks again Nate!

          Reply

          • Hi Will

            I think the safest bet is the Mountain Twin or West – I think the Standard could work for you but it’s a bigger risk with being slightly wider, with 7.5 boots.

            In terms of the main differences between the 2 of those, I’d say that the West has a slightly looser feel to it – not overly loose but looser than the Mountain Twin, which has a very stable feel. But I’d say that the West is a quicker turner.

            The Cartels are a good match for any of these boards.

        • Thanks Nate! Really appreciate all the help. I’m pretty sure I am going to get the Jones Mountain Twin 151. Last question, promise. Is it worth it to step up to the Jones Ultra Mountain Twin or is that unnecessary for me?

          Reply

          • Hi Will

            The Ultra Mountain Twin is one of those boards that I keep meaning to demo, but just haven’t yet! Next season for sure!

            But by the sounds of it, there’s not a huge difference in performance. Maybe slightly better at speed, slightly better carver and a bit more pop. Though Jones rate both boards with the same flex level, I’ve heard people say that the Ultra is a little bit stiffer flexing.

            For an extra $100, I’m not sure – that would be up to you in terms of whether it’s worth it or not.

            I get this question a lot, so demoing the Mountain Twin and Ultra side by side will be my first priority when demoing 2019 gear!

        • Thanks again Nate! I bought the Yes Standard 151. I had the same waist width as the Mountain Twin and was only slightly wider at the tip and tail so I don’t think it will affect me too much. It will be a huge upgrade over my current board, Sapient 153cm (Some The-House off brand or something). Thanks!

          Reply

  9. Hey Nate,

    I have one more question about the Yes Standard. I bought the 151 and I was convinced it will be a perfect board for me. However, a gearhead at Backcountry emailed me about my order and suggested I might have a better fit on 153 due to my size (5’10” 140lbs 7.5 boot). What do you think? Will the 151 give me enough float and allow some big mountain stuff? And is the 153 really going to turn a lot slower? I’ve only ever ridden 1 board so I don’t know how much an effect width has. Thanks again for all your help!

    Reply

    • Hi Will

      I still think the 151cm for you for this board. 253mm is getting pretty wide for you with 7.5s – and that would be fine if you sized down the length a bit. But given that I’d put you on around a 153 or 154 for your advanced all-mountain length, then going 153cm isn’t sizing down the length – but you are going pretty wide for 7.5s, IMO.

      Even the 248mm on the 151cm is at the wider end of the range for 7.5s – still in the range but at the wider end – so going shorter is ok, in that case IMO. Also, even though YES don’t publish weight recommendations like some other snowboard companies do I did find a retailer who do their own weight recommendations and for both the 151 and 153, they have a range of 135 to 175. Now, as much as it’s strange that they would give the same weight range for these two boards, it would put you at the lower end for both, in terms of weight.

      I would say it would be more accurate to have the 151 as 125 to 165 pounds and this would be more in line with 2017’s 152cm (248mm waist) which is a pretty similar size. This would put you right in the middle for that one. Not that I take weight recommendations too much into account, but this is just another reason that leans me towards the 151.

      That said, the 153cm isn’t way off – it’s still going to be a suitable board for you – I just think that the 151 is going to be slightly more suitable. In terms of big mountain stuff and if you’re going to be in a lot of deep powder, then yeah the 153 is going to perform better in those situations. But for an all-round size for you, given that you like to hit the park and the trees too – then I think the 151 is a better balance – you could still for sure take the 153 into the park and the trees, it’s just not going to work quite as well as the 151. And you can still take the 151 Big Mountain, it’s just not going to work as well as the 153.

      Hope that makes sense. Anyway, I won’t be offended if you go with Backcountry’s recommendation, but I still think 151 is overall the best size for you. Did you explain to them how you like to ride?

      Reply

      • The only other thing that Backcountry might be considering, that I just remembered, is that they have narrowed the stance options for the 2018 Standard.

        So the max stance you can have on the 151 is now 550mm (21.5″). They might be thinking this is narrow for 5’10”. I think it’s still doable and the board has been designed with these stance widths in mind (though I still would have liked to see them leave some wider stance options open). If you went to the 153 you’d get the option to go to 560mm (22″).

        I’d say for 5’10” that it would be fine at 21″ so 21.5″ would give you a bit of leeway there – but if you do like a wider stance, then that is another consideration.

        Reply

        • Thanks Nate, I really appreciate the detailed responses you give. I think I am going to stick with the 151 Yes Standard. My stand width never went above 21.5″ so I’ll be fine in that department. And the Yes 153 is about the same width as a a 158W Jones Mountain Twin at the tip and tail and the same waist width as a 157. I’m worried that will be too wide for my needs and slow down my turns. If it turns out I really want a powder/big mountain board, I can always grab that down the line.

          Thanks again Nate, you’re awesome!

          Reply

  10. Hey mate,

    Just wondering how you think this board would go in deep powder like in Japan? Seems decent for a twin.

    Thanks very much great reviews!

    Reply

    • Hi Jarrod

      Yeah, the Standard would be fine in deep powder, I reckon. I only rode it centered but if you got on those slam back inserts, it would improve that powder performance quite a bit. Even centered it did pretty well – but would definitely improve with that setback stance. My powder rating here does take into account an estimation for the slam backs. I’d be thinking more like 3.5/5 for centered.

      It’s not going to float like a long nosed, heavily rockered in the nose, directional, heavily set back powder or freeride board of course, but if you want something that do other things – like go in the park, ride the trees, ride the groomers, ride switch, butter etc as well as ride the powder, then it’s a good choice. If you’re basically just going to be riding powder and carving the groomers, then there are better options that sacrifice in other areas, but in terms of if you want something that’s versatile but can also handle the powder, then something like this is the way to go.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  11. Hey Nate

    Love your reviews and have been reading into a lot of them lately and am really interested in getting the Yes Standard but just wanted to reach out to you with some concerns regarding sizing. I’m 6’3″ and 170lbs with a size 12-13 boot. I was just concerned over whether the lack of wide sizes for the 2018 boards would be problematic with my boot size and result in too much overhang. Also what size would you recommend? I was thinking the 159 would be best but was wondering if you had a different view.

    Thanks man

    Reply

    • Hi Josh

      I think the 159 would be a great size for you, for this board – and the 263mm waist width on that will be fine for size 12s. It would be pushing it to being too narrow for size 13s though. You’d probably still get away with it but it would be cutting it finer. If you had low profile boots, then you’d be safer, even on 13s.

      I would definitely recommend getting boots first, so you know for sure. If you go with something like Adidas, Burton or Ride, then they all have good reduced footprint, which would make it easier for you to get on that board. I’d say with those brands that you’d be fine on the 159, even if you ended up on 13s.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Thanks for the quick response.

        I believe I will end up going with the Burton Photon Boa boots in size 13 and the Burton Cartel bindings. My only question that remains is that since I do plan to go with a burton boot and binding set-up, would it be best to go with a burton snowboard as well to get full use of Burton EST? As it was the 2 boards I was deciding between were the 159 Yes Standard and the 159W Burton Flight Attendant. So would it be best to go with the Burton board as well or are the benefits of EST not worth giving up the Yes Standard

        Thanks once again

        Reply

        • Hi Josh

          You could go all Burton, if you were getting Burton Cartel EST bindings, and the Flight Attendant is a great board, IMO. But I would class it as a different type of board than the YES Standard. I would categorize the Flight Attendant as a Freeride board.

          The main differences between these two boards, IMO:

          1. The Flight Attendant is going to be a bit better when it comes to Speed, Carving and Powder – those are the main things this board is made for
          2. The Standard is going to be considerably better for riding switch and for jumps
          3. The Standard has slightly better edge-hold in hard/icy conditions
          4. The Flight Attendant is marginally stiffer than the Standard – Standard 6/10, Flight Attendant 7/10
          5. The Standard 159 is a little wider than the 159W FA – and will be more accommodating for your size 13s.

          Overall the Standard is more of an all-round board, more versatile. Whereas the FA is more geared towards one style of riding.

          Burton Re:Flex bindings still flex really well with the board – so if you think the YES Standard is the right board for you, then I would go Burton Cartel Re:Flex, with the YES Standard. If you thought that the Flight Attendant might suit you better, then go with that board – and you can decide to get either EST (to maximize board feel) or Re:Flex (sacrifice a little in board feel but have the versatility to put them on other boards if you needed to) .

          I would base my decision on the board that you think will be the most suitable for you.

          Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

          Reply

  12. Hi nate
    I have a custom 158 at the moment but Im looking at getting a jones mountain twin or the yes standard 2017 im 5″6 and 73k at the moment what size and board would be best for a short and stumpy guy?

    Reply

    • Hi Stu

      Thanks for your message.

      I think the following sizes would suit you best.

      YES Standard 2017: 156cm – if you were to go for the 2018 model, then I’d say the 153 (depending on your boot) sizes. Even for the 2017 model, 154cm is definitely a possibility. But since you’re used to a 158cm, then it will less of a sizing down, so will be easier to transition to the 156cm.

      Jones Mountain Twin: 157cm but I would be tempted to say 154cm for this too. I would usually say 154 for you – but since you’re coming from a 158, then maybe the 157 would be an easier transition – especially since you’re coming from an all-camber 158 (assuming you’re not talking about the Custom Flying V).

      But to give you a more accurate sizing, can you let me know a couple more things.

      1. Your boot size
      2. What is your ability level?
      3. How do you like to ride? trees, steeps, bowls, park, jibs, jumps etc

      That way I will be able to give a more accurate recommendation.

      Reply

  13. Hi Nate…I’m 5’ 10 about 80kg been riding a 163 Head Board for a while, probably not right size for me as it was a gift…what size do you think I should get, looking for new setup and either this Yes Standard or Burton Process Flying V 2017…intermediate level rider I guess…thanks!

    Reply

    • Hi Dean

      Yeah, in my opinion that size is a bit too long for you. I think something between a 156 and 159 would be a good size. I would be leaning towards the earlier end of that spectrum as an intermediate rider, but since you are now used to a 163, then probably leaning towards the longer end.

      The sizing for the Standard will depend on which year you get, and also your boot size will come into, so if you can let me know that, then I can give a more accurate size recommendation.

      ~ Standard 2017: 158 (or 159W if you’ve got roughly US10.5+ boot size)
      ~ Standard 2018: Probably 156 (but would depend on boot size)
      ~ Process Flying V: 159 (or 159W if roughly US11+ boot size)

      But yeah, if you can let me know your boot size, that would be awesome.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Cool yeah sorry I’m a UK size 8 to 9, been leaning toward the process Flying V 159 if I’m honest as it looks a pretty cool board too but would be open to other twin recommendations. Why does the later year model for the Yes Standard drop in length? Also I’m used to Flow bindings (I know!) so been looking at the NX2 GT 2018 model, appreciate the advice 🙂 Thanks, Dean

        Reply

        • Hi Dean

          Thanks for the extra info. Yeah definitely don’t go wide, then.

          The Standard 2018 changed sizes quite a bit from the 2017 model. All their sizes got wider. So unless you have wider feet, then you would ride this board shorter as it’s a wider length. Going shorter will compensate for edge to edge speed, because of the extra width. This has it’s advantages (trees being the obvious one) and there are quite a lot boards that are doing this these days. The Standard is a moderate version. Some boards are made to size down up to 10cm – but have a really wide width.

          But yeah, usually 258mm would be a tad wide for your boot size, but dropping a bit of length compensates for that.

          So, based on your boot size, then I would go:

          ~ Standard 2017: 158
          ~ Standard 2018: 156
          ~ Process Flying V: 159

          But yeah, if you like the sound of the Process Flying V, then that’s a good option and I think you’ll appreciate that board and length over what you’re currently riding.

          I haven’t ridden Flow bindings for a few years now, so I can’t really comment on the NX2 GT.

          Reply

          • One more question please Nate I’ve now looked at the Yes Pick Your Line, what are your thoughts on this board and again 159 length for me..? Thanks, Dean

          • Hi Dean

            If you were going to go for Pick Your Line, then 159 would be the size to go for you, I would say. However, the PYL is a very stiff board and I don’t think it would be that suitable as an intermediate rider.

  14. Hi Nate,
    Looking at Yes Standard 2018 either 156 or 159. I’m 5ft 10, weigh 224 Ibs, Size 11(US) Thirty two TM2 boots.
    Looking to use in BC revelstoke & Red mountain & europe. All mountain use, bit of park (basic skills) – kickers and rails and boxes, some flatland spins, Powder and off piste riding, the Yes standard will be for when I want a more relaxed shred to the stiffer Jones Aviator (158w) (last years model). The ride Warpig (Small) which I’ll use for heavy pow days.
    Just thinking the Yes Standard 159 with waist width of 26.3 maybe a big sluggish- slower edge to edge for my foot size, but then again it will have more float. I’d prefer the 156 because I like the waist width of 25.8 and being shorter would be more nimble and freestyle orientated, just not sure of my weight sacrificing float.
    So that’s where I’m stuck between the 2 sizes.

    Thanks in advance

    Reply

    • Hi Jason

      I can see your dilemma!

      Usually, I would straight away say 159 for you, given your specs – and I don’t think the 263mm waist would be too wide for you with 11s, given that your specs suggest something a little longer than 159 – so going down in length helps to accommodate the extra width.

      However, since you already have your aviator in 158W, and you want to use the Standard more for your freestyle days. I would definitely say 159 if it was going to be your one board – but since you want to use it as your more freestyle oriented board, the 156 is tempting.

      I couldn’t say for sure how the 156 would perform for you in powder – but it would definitely loose powder performance over the 159 – whether that decrease would make it unrideable or un-fun in powder, I couldn’t say. I found the 156 was fine in powder – but I’m 180-185lbs, so it’s not a direct comparison.

      But I’m tempted to lean towards the 156 – just because it sounds like you lean towards a shorter length and if you want it as your more relaxed days, the only thing is the powder, so that would be the risk.

      Hope this gives you more to go off

      Reply

  15. Thankyou Nate,
    It’s always great reading your objective opinions and reviews with knowledgeable info made simple.
    You’re spot on with my dilemma! appreciate your valuable thoughts and advice.
    So have purchased the 156 though may change my mind to the 159 when I pick it up for better powder float in relation to my weight and as you mentioned 159 is already shorter than my recommended length for all terrain and freestyle will still be ok.
    Guess I’ll regretably sell the Rome Blur from new as can’t carry that many boards on any given trip.

    All the best

    Regards

    Jason

    Reply

  16. Hi Nate,
    Thanks for the great reviews, I bought a ‘Yes the greats’ last year on your recommendation and loved it. You were spot on.
    This year I fancy a Yes Standard for the alround ability including those powder days.
    My last years ‘the greats’ was a 158 and that suited me well, tons of fun. I going for a 2018 Standard and was edging towards a 156 because of the increased waist size, which is quite a bit even from the 2017 Yes the greats 158.
    I’m 6ft, 195lbs and size UK 10 boots (us 11?) – what are your thoughts?

    Reply

    • Hi Geoff

      Thanks for your message and awesome that you’re loving the Greats!

      I think for your specs the 159 Standard is probably the best bet. For you I would say around a 161cm for do-it-all kind of riding, and with UK10s, I would say that something between 254mm and 260mm would be a good width to go with. The Standard 159 (2018 model) has a 263mm waist width – but you’re dropping a couple of centimeters going to the 159, so that balances it out.

      The 156 would be doable, since it’s wider than what you’ve got now, which would give you similar surface area to what you have now. However, because of two things, i think the 159 is the better bet

      1. The effective edge on the Standard 159 is less than the Greats 158, and the 156 would be even less again. So in terms of effective edge, you are going lower anyway on the 159.

      2. Since you want the Standard as your all-mountain board, and for tackling powder, then I think you want something that has a bit more surface area under it than your 158 Greats. The 156 Standard wouldn’t have much more under it than the 158 Greats I would imagine (it’s more suited for powder in other ways, but surface area is an important factor for float).

      Anyway, long story short, I think the 159 would be the best size for you for the Standard. 156 wouldn’t be a disaster at all, but on balance I think the 159.

      Hope this helps with your decision.

      Reply

      • Thanks for your detailed reply.
        You’ve been bang on the money with your reviews on my last 2 purchases – yes greats with burton genesis- that I value your opinion.
        159 it is.
        Thanks again.

        Reply

      • Hello Nate, I’m about same stats as Geoff is, but wearing a 10US boots. Do you think 159 would work for me too? I do plan to put some responsive bindings (Union Factory) to compensate that extra width.
        Thanks!

        Reply

        • Hi Aleksandr

          I think you could go 159 with US10s. I would personally go with the 156 – US10s but I’m more like 180lbs – so I think that with a bit of extra weight that the 159 becomes more suitable for you.

          The only thing would be how you were planning to use the Standard. If you think you’ll probably do quite a bit of freestyle stuff on it, then the 156 becomes more tempting. But if you think you’ll mostly be riding groomers, carving, hitting powder (when you can) and that sort of thing, if those are the most important things to you, then 159 is probably your best bet.

          Reply

  17. Hey Nate,

    I’ve read every comment and they’ve been instrumental in my decision making. I’m 5’8″, 132lbs, boot sizes range from US9.5-10.5 depending on brand and can’t find the 149cm board in stock in the states. For a freestyle rider who prioritizes turning ease over speed is the 151 perfect or too long? Or does my boot size limit my options? Again, I think your comment responses have been worth their weight in gold – thank you.

    Reply

    • Hi Scott

      Thanks for your message.

      First, in terms of width, I think you would be fine on the 151 with US10s or less, assuming that you are riding on something like +15/-15 angles. If you have a straighter back leg, then it will be getting a bit narrow. With 10.5s, it would be more risky, even with 15 degrees on your back foot – but you might still be ok – but it would be riskier. On the 149, I think you’d be fine with 9.5s and +15/15 or +12/-12 or something like that but anything more than a 9.5 or straigher angles would be getting pretty narrow.

      In terms of length, I think the 151 is doable for you, if you are at an advanced level, but I think 149 would be a better length. I know it’s only a couple of cms but it can make a noticeable difference.

      Have you thought about the Typo or even the Jackpot if you’re a more freestyle oriented rider? They have 149s (which are also a little wider than the Standard 149). Or are you set on the Standard? If you really want the Standard, then the 151 is doable for you (keeping in mind comments about width) and probably the best option in terms of width too.

      Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision

      Reply

      • Thanks Nate,

        I went ahead with the 151 and used the link in your review. I’ll likely pick up a another board for the quiver with a more freestyle feel to it another year. Thanks again! Not a lot of information out there on boot width.

        Reply

  18. Hey Nate,
    I’m an intermediate rider who does mostly groomers and was wondering whether you think the 156 or 159 size would be better suited for me. I’m 6’3″ and weigh 175 lbs with size 12 burton boots.
    -Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Josh

      For you I think the 159 is the best option. This is going to be a good fit in terms of waist width too. You could possibly get on the 156 (258mm waist) in terms of width, if you have binding angles that have a back foot angle of 12 or 15 degrees. Even then I would normally say too narrow for size 12s, but since this board has mid-bite (which means that the waist is essentially cinched in so that the width at the inserts are wider than they would be on the average board with the same waist width) and you have Burton boots, then I think you would be fine. But if your back foot tends to be straighter, then the width on the 156 gets risky in terms of being to narrow.

      But regardless of that, I think the 159 is a better size anyway. I would ordinarily recommend something around 161 for you as an intermediate rider, but, for this board I would say to drop down a couple of cms as it’s a little wider than your average board. I think the 156 would be going too small – and since it’s on the narrow side for your boots, then I think that you wouldn’t want to drop that much length. Hope this makes sense.

      Long story short – the 159, for you, for sure.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  19. I’m skimming through all the comments and now I feel bad for this, but I’m going to hop on the train and ask for sizing advice for the 2018 Standard.

    I’m basically looking for a do-anything board that will be my only board. I’ve never been in a terrain park before, or tried tricks, so I’m leaning towards something more all-mountain than freestyle, but I really don’t have the experience to rule it out. I generally board on the east coast, but I’ll be going out west this winter and may run into some powder.

    I weigh about 175, I’m 6ft tall, and I think I’ll be in a 10.5 Adidas boot. Would the 156cm be the correct size? Based on the reading I’ve done (this would be the first board I’ve owned), I should generally be in the 158-160 range for a normal board, but it sounds like with this one I could size down.

    Similar question for the Yes Typo. Would a 159 be an appropriate size? I’ve been worried about boots fitting a standard width board appropriately, since all the boots I’ve been trying have been in the 10.5-11 range.

    Additionally, would you be able to give me a quick comparison between the Typo and the Standard? Basically every review I’m looking at says they’re both good at everything, which is unhelpful, but there’s a 50$ difference. What does that 50$ get me (aside from a much sexier topsheet)?

    Thanks so much.

    Reply

    • Hi Jonathan

      Thanks for your message. Yeah, I think the 156 is probably the best bet for you. In general, sizing down a bit for this board is a good idea, unless you’ve got particularly big boots. But with 10.5s, and your specs, I’d say the 156 is the best size. I’d say ordinarily you’d be on a 159 – 161. But for this board I’d go 156.

      In terms of width generally, size 10s, I’d say try to go no narrower than 252mm – but that’s only if you have binding angles that have a back foot angle of around 12-15 degrees. With a straighter angles you’d want to go a little wider. So if you had a completely flat back foot, then I’d say 258mm would be around where you’d want to be. With Adidas being a low profile boot, you can take off a couple of millimeters for those measurements.

      Note that the Standard has a tech called “mid-bite” which essentially cinches it in at the waist, so even though the 156 has a 258mm waist, it’s wider generally than other boards with a 258mm waist.

      For the YES Typo, I’d say the 158 would be a good size for you (assuming certain binding angles), assuming you are an intermediate rider or up. If you’re really advanced, then you could even go to the 161. If you have straighter binding angles, or a straighter back foot, then the 159W is probably more appropriate.

      There are quite a few differences between the Standard and the Typo.

      1. for starters their shapes are quite different. As discussed, the Standard is a wider board and has that “mid-bite” in it. For example the 156 Standard (258mm waist) has 304.5mm tip and tail whilst the 156W Typo (259mm waist) has 302.9mm tip and tail. So even the wide version of Typo is narrower – even with a mildly wider waist.

      2. The Typo is designed with a slight setback (5mm so very subtle), whereas the Standard is centered ordinarily with the option of a the slam back inserts. A lot of riders like to set up centered for the groomers and park and then setback for riding powder – so the Standard allows this.

      3. The Standard is stiffer flexing. This is one of the major differences – I’d say that the Typo is around a 4.5/10 flex, whereas the Standard is more like 6/10.

      4. The Standard is a Directional Volume twin. What that means is that basically the shape is a twin shape but there is more volume in the nose – so the tail is a bit narrower than the nose – but without tapering the sidecut. The Typo has essentially a twin shape – but the stance is setback a bit.

      5. The Typo has underbite, which works really well for edge-hold in hard/icy conditions

      6. The Standard has a slightly different camber profile. They both have Hybrid Camber profiles (camber between and under the feet, with rocker tip and tail), but there the rocker tip and tail is more pronounced on the Typo than it is on the Standard, giving the Standard a slightly more cambery feel (though there’s still plenty of rocker in there) and the Typo a slightly more playful feel.

      7. They have different side-cuts, giving their turns a different feel.

      8. The Standard has bamboo in the core – otherwise both have poplar cores.

      And there could be more but those are the main things. What this translates to is.

      1. The Standard is better on a carve, more stable at speed and better in powder (when on the setback slam backs, but can still ride powder centered)
      2. The Typo has better edge-hold in hard/icy conditions – but the Standard isn’t bad in this area either
      3. The Standard has got a little more pop for jumps/ollies
      4. Their both about the same for riding switch, when the Standard is centered
      5. The Typo is better for jibs
      6. The Typo is better for beginner riders than the Standard. The Standard is more of an intermediate and up board

      If you haven’t seen my review on the Typo, you can also check that out here.

      >>YES Typo Review

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  20. Nate – Thanks for your killer reviews!
    Question, if you would kindly provide some of your sage advice…
    I’m liking everything I read about the 2018 Yes Standard and just looking for some sizing help. Torn b/w the 156 and 159.
    I’m 6’1″, 175-180 lbs, size 11 1/2 Adidas Response (reduced profile) boot. Currently ride the 2014 Jones Mountain Twin 158W. Been riding for 20 years, I’d say pretty advanced rider. Enjoy all terrain – groomers, pow, glades, sidehits and occasional park laps. East coast rider, but do two or three trips a year for CO/Utah mountains.

    What do you think?
    Thanks in advance!
    ~Alex

    Reply

    • Hi Alex

      Thanks for your message.

      It’s a close call between the 156 and 159 for you. Normally I’d definitely say 159 but with the Standard sizing down to the 156 becomes an option.

      Width-wise, it should definitely be wide enough for Adidas 11.5s – and especially given the “mid-bite” on the Standard which is essentially a cinched in waist. So the tip/tail and inserts are wider than you would expect from a 258mm waist. If you have binding angles like +15/-15 then it would be easily wide enough but even if you ride with a really straight back foot it should be wide enough.

      For me, I’m definitely 156, even though I would usually ride 159 for this type of board. But because of that extra width, it’s nice to size down. But I have size 10 boots – so the 156 is actually quite wide for me. Otherwise my specs are similar allbeit a little shorter and a little heavier (6’0″ and 185lbs). For your boots the 156 won’t be overly wide – it will be a good width, but you still get the advantages of a wider board and that makes dropping a bit of length an option.

      The 159 (263mm waist) is also still an option. This will be on the wide side for your boots, but 159 still isn’t crazy long for your specs, so I think you’ still be good on the 159.

      The 156 is still going to have an effective edge that’s shorter than what you would be used to – the effective edge on the 156 is 116.3cm compared to the 118cm on your Mountain Twin. The 159 has a 118.8cm effective edge. So when you’re on edge, it’s still going to feel shorter than what you have. So, in terms of stability at speed the 159 is going to be better in that respect – and will be better in powder. Though the 156 will be as good or better than your current 158W in powder – in terms of surface area anyway – and if you get in those slam backs, then it certainly won’t lack in the pow. Also the extra width still gives you extra stability for landings. It’s just when your on edge that you might notice it feeling shorter.

      But that said there are benefits to going shorter too – I prefer shorter in trees and for spins, jibs and butters. And the 156 will feel quicker edge-to-edge too.

      Sorry I haven’t given you a definitive answer here – both are options and will have their own strengths and weakness. Hopefully this gives you more to go off.

      Reply

      • Thanks for the detailed comments. That was helpful. I just ordered the 156, think it will be a tad more fun. Can’t wait to give it a go!

        Reply

        • You’re very welcome Alex. Hope you enjoy the new board! Let me know what you think once you’ve had a chance to ride it.

          Reply

  21. Hi Nate,

    The last few years I’ve been riding a 2012 K2 Raygun 164W board. Now has come the time to replace it with something better (sintered) and slightly smaller. I’m intermediate and mainly ride groomers and if available, hit some powder shortcuts in between the slopes. Not that much freestyle apart from the occasional jump on a natural kicker. Where I ride it can get quite icy so I need good edge hold. Had too many bruised ribs and wrists so I prefer a board that’s somewhat forgiving rather than aggressive.

    Size wise I’m 6.1, 180lbs (without gear) with boot size US12.

    I’m hesitating between the Yes Standard 159 (can get good deal on that one) and the Yes Typo (159W or 163W?). The Typo is more groomer oriented if I’m right?

    Jones Explorer (161W) is also an option of course.

    What’s your rec.?

    Thx !

    Reply

    • Hi Alain

      Thanks for your message.

      I think you’ll appreciate something a little shorter. 164 isn’t way too long for you, but I’d put you more around a 161, 162. And going to 159, particularly on something like the Standard, is definitely an option.

      You could say that the Typo is more groomer oriented – just a small setback and pretty close to being a twin – and it’s a better softer flexing than the Standard. But the Standard in it’s normal setup is actually centered and it’s also pretty close to being a twin – it’s just got a bit less volume in the tail which just helps it to sink in the powder (which helps to lift the nose). And then you’ve got the slam back inserts if you want to get more setback for powder days.

      In terms of sizing, I would say that the 159W Typo (261mm waist), is pushing it a little bit for 12s. I’d say you’d be fine so long as you had binding angles +15-/15 but anything with a straighter back foot and it would be pushing it too narrow. The 163W would give you a bit more breathing space, but I think it sounds like you want to go shorter than that, and I think that’s probably a good call.

      The 159 Standard would be a great size for you IMO. The Standard is cinched in at the waist (what YES call ‘Mid-Bite’) – so the board is wider at the inserts and the tip/tail than the waist width would suggest. So you’d have no problems with width on that, IMO. And because of that extra width, the 159 is also a great length for you, IMO.

      The 161W Explorer (264mm waist) is also a great option for you, IMO and should be fine waist wise, just so long as you don’t ride with like a completely straight (0 degrees) back foot).

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

      • Hi Nate,

        I’m on a +21+6 stance. Yeah probably will choose between the standard 159 and explorer 161w. Coincidentally those two aren’t sold out yet, unlike other wide boards.

        Do both these boards ride the same or are they different beasts altogether?

        thx for the input, appreciate it.

        Reply

        • Hi Alain

          They are definitely different rides. I wouldn’t say that either are overly aggressive, but they’re not overly playful either. The Explorer you can get quite aggressive on it, but it’s also not unforgiving when you want to slow it down. I’d say similar for the Standard. But they are different feeling rides for sure.

          In terms of the Mountain Twin, I would say that the 161W (260mm waist) is going to be a bit narrow for 12s with those binding angles. And the 164W is getting long and is also potentially too narrow.

          The 161W Explorer is a little wider (264mm at the waist) and you would probably get away with that with your binding angles and 12s. But that’s probably the narrowest I would go. The Standard would give you a bit more space at the inserts.

          Also, I forgot to mention before that the Standard is a little better in icy conditions than the Explorer or Mountain Twin, IMO. The Explorer/MT aren’t bad – i’d say 4/5 – but I’d say the Standard is better.

          Hope this helps with your decision

          Reply

          • Hi Nate,

            I got a really good deal on a 161W Explorer, so that’s the one I will be taking to Austria in a few weeks. Looking forward to it.

            Big thx for the personal advice, appreciate it.

            cheers

            alain

          • You’re very welcome Alain. Hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome time riding in Austria!

  22. I currently have a YES Typo. I really like the board, but wish it had a little more float in powder and also a bit more speed. Do you think the standard is a good choice as an upgrade? Other suggestions? Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hi Brian

      Yeah, the Standard will give you a bit more float. It’s stance is normally centered, which is obviously not ideal for powder, but you can put it into the “slamback” inserts so you can setback on powder days. The other thing that helps with float with the Standard is their Directional Volume Twin – which basically has a little less volume in the tail which helps it to sink and therefore lift the nose a little more. In terms of speed, it’s more stable at speed than the Typo and just faster in general, in my opinion.

      Just note that with the Standard you’ve got to think a little differently in terms of sizing. It’s quite a wide board – even wider than the waist width suggests, because of the “mid-bite” which cinches the board in at the waist. If you do decide to go with this board, I can recommend a good size for you, if you’d like. I’d just need your height, weight and boot size.

      You could check out this list for some other options – ratings for powder and speed are under each board.

      >>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Hey Nate, I’m considering a standard. I’m 5’9” about 145-150 with gear on and wear a 9.5 boot I’m since it’s a wider board what do you recommend size wise?

        Reply

        • Hi James

          Thanks for your message.

          Yeah, because of the extra width, I would recommend sizing down for this board. Usually, I would say something around a 154 for an all-mountain board but for this board I think the 151 is your best size. You could go 153, but I think the 151 is going to be a better fit for you.

          Hope this helps

          Reply

  23. Hi Nate,

    Im having a really hard time while trying to decide my next board. I have tried to replace my current Burton Vapor 156 for a years now but always find my way back to it 🙂 just a great board but a bit too small and I want something a bit more playful and better float. I have Burton Fish (solid and split) for deep days and off piste so what Im looking for is more for the piste; carving on the groomers, hitting every small jumps on the way and buttering. Also worth of mention that when ever I see soft untouched snow, thats where I go! I don’t do park or pipe a lot but would like to improve my basic trick skills tho…

    After 20+ years of snowboarding with season tickets I would say Im pretty advanced rider 🙂 I also have 100+ riding days per year to choose so no need to go out and get angry when slopes are icy.

    I have narrowed my options for these: YES The Greats, YES Standard and Capita DOA. I just hope that I have change to test these (and others) boards but unfortunately its impossible in my country. I know all of these are great boards and I wont go wrong no matter which I choose but just want your comparison fo these three.

    Im 183cm and 80kg. My foot is US10,5-11. So my options at the moment is The Greats 158, Standard 156 or DOA 158 (or 160). What do you think?

    Thanks for the great reviews and website. Have an awesome season!
    Cheers from Finland, -Jyri-

    Reply

    • Hi Jyri

      Thanks for your message.

      I think the Standard sounds like a good option for you. And sizing-wise, I think you’re probably spot on for that board. As it’s a bit wider, you want to go a little shorter. And the width should be fine there for 10.5-11s. The advantage of this over the Greats and the DOA is that it’s going to float a little better in soft snow.

      But the Greats is also a great (excuse the pun!) option. It’s going to be a little softer, more playful than the Standard and a little better for short sharp turns. It’s also a little better for riding switch and jumps, IMO. Just not quite as good a float in deeper powder – but you can definitely ride on it, it’s just harder work keeping the nose afloat. And I’d say still better in powder than the DOA. The 158 is a good length for you for this board, IMO. In terms of width you should be fine on either 10.5 or 11s, assuming you ride +15/-15 binding angles. For this type of board (asym twin) it is recommended that you ride these kinds of binding angles, so I’d recommend that for this board anyway.

      DOA is a good option too – and the 158 is what I would pick for you. Same applies for the width as for the Greats, in terms of wanting to have those angles there. It’s not an asym board, so you can have any angles you want there – but just in terms of fitting on the board width-wise, having a decent angle on the back foot is a good idea.

      Any of those would work for you but based on what you’re describing, I think the YES Greats and Standard would be your best options, and I would be leaning towards the Greats for you.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • P.S.
        The greats 156 is available as well for 420.
        So when getting 2 boards, which ones would you choose and why.
        If getting one, same question.
        Sorry to bother you this much, I’m really bad at choosing…

        cheers!

        Reply

        • Hi Bruno

          No need to apologize, this is what I do!

          If you were going to go with 2 boards, then I would say go Greats and Brainstorm. The Brainstorm would give you more in powder for those powder days and the Greats would be your all-mountain-freestyle deck. The reason I would go for the Brainstorm over the Standard in a two board quiver, is that the Brainstorm is setup to be setback all the time, whereas the Standard is something that is usually centered but is designed so you can put it into a setback stance for powder days.

          So for a one board quiver, that makes the Standard quite appealing – so long as you think you could be bothered setting the bindings back on powder days. One thing to note with the Standard though, is that it’s a wider board, so it’s something that I usually recommend sizing down for – the 156 might just be a little wide in that length for you. Which would put you down to the 153, which would be a possibility but I think that’s probably getting a bit too short. So I’m not sure there’s an ideal length for that board.

          And the reason I’d go Brainstorm and Greats, instead of Typo and Greats is that the Typo is a board that is closer to the Greats than the Brainstorm is – it’s only got a very small setback and it’s otherwise close to a centered twin. It’s different in a few ways to the Greats, but not as difference as the Brainstorm is compared to the Greats.

          The Typo and the Brainstorm would both make good one board quivers for you (assuming you didn’t go with the Standard because of sizing). The Brainstorm will be better for the likes of powder and speed and the Typo better for riding switch and jibs. Both are equally good for carving, IMO.

          Overall, I think the Brainstorm 157, for you personally, would probably be the best in terms of a one board quiver.

          Reply

          • Thank you Nate,

            this helps so much. I’m going to take the Brainstorm like you advice. Looks like a great board how you describe it.
            Would you advice taking the Typo 2017 as a second board, since the price is pretty low? Or is this just a waste of money? Are the boards to similar, is the brainstorm easy to learn switch riding because of the setback? (the greats and brainstorm would be to expensive)

            PS: Don’t know how i replied in the yes standard forum suddenly. 🙂

            Best Regards!

          • Hi Bruno

            The Typo is a little different to the Brainstorm, in a few ways.

            1. The Brainstorm has more setback (20mm vs 5mm on the Typo)
            2. The Brainstorm’s camber profile is directional – it has less rocker in the tail and the rocker in the tail is more subtle compared to in the nose. The Typo is closer to a twin in that sense.

            So they’re a little different – and they have some different strengths and weaknesses – i.e. Brainstorm is better for powder, and for speed and the Typo better for learning switch on. But they’re not hugely different. The Typo is closer to a twin and closer to being centered, so it will be easier to learn switch on compared to the Brainstorm, but the brainstorm isn’t bad for riding switch, IMO. I personally wouldn’t have the two of them in my quiver together, I’d go for more difference but if you wanted something for learning Switch easier and for learning jumps and other tricks more easily, then the Typo might be an option – but personally I would go for a more freestyle oriented board to compliment it – something that’s true twin and centered – so you’ve got more of a contrast between boards.

          • Hey Nate,

            Just wanted to let you know, I ended up buying the Greats.
            I was going for the Brainstorm, but the shop had a lot of slash board with the topsheet which came loose. Since they only have 1 year waranty and Yes gives lifetime warranty I chose the Greats.
            Thank you for your awesome advice. And I will let you know how this board will be for me ! Thank you again

          • Hi Bruno

            Thanks for the update. Looking forward to hear how the Greats goes for you.

  24. Hi Nate,
    Thanks so much for these reviews! They’re fun to read and really help to make the best decision when buying new gear. In fact, I bought the Yes Standard partly because of this. I bought the 1,53 m version, but doubting the length a bit I would like to ask for a second opinion, what size would you recommend for me? I am intermediate, like to ride a bit playful and am 1,70m (5’7″) and weight is approx 70kgs (154lbs), shoe is 40 EUR (7 mens). But I ride with women 8 boots because they fit me even better, bindings same (Burton Lexa 2018). Hope I made the right choice, and would value your opinion. Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hi Vincent

      Thanks for your message.

      I would put you on a 155cm for a regular all-mountain board – but this board is a little bit of a different shape – it’s a bit wider, so dropping down a couple cm off your regular length is a good idea for this kind of board. SO I think the 153 is an ok size for you. But the 151cm might be even better for you. It’s narrower, which might be a better fit for your boot size and given that you like things a bit more playful. The 151 would be more playful for you. Also as an intermediate rider, it’s not absolutely necessary, but you can take off a couple of cms there too – so taking off 4cm would be fine, in your case, IMO, for this board.

      But that said, the 153 will work for you, IMO, I just think the 151 might be just that slight bit more suitable.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Thanks so much Nate, definitely helps! Knowing that 153cm would work fine, although 151 slightly better I will see if I can exchange. The boards are selling out fast here though, so if the 151 is out I’ll keep the 153cm. Either way I will have a lot of fun with it. Thanks for the extra info and reassuring me in my purchase!

        Reply

  25. Hi – love the reviews. Would like your take on the right size standard for me. I’m 155 lbs, 5’ 9’’ us boot 11 and a good intermediate but only get to ride a week or so a year. Most of time on groomers but like to improve my slope side spins/butters. Ridden a 158 Custom for many years wanted something a little less catchy and forgiving to help with the above. Can I get away with the 156 or should I drop to the 153? Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Anesh

      Thanks for your message.

      Ordinarily I would put you on around a 155ish, but for this board, I’d say go 153. Even with 11US – this board is wider at the inserts than the waist width suggests – it has what YES call ‘midbite’ which essentially cinches the board at the waist. So, I think this will be a good width and going down to 153 will make it more playful. The 153cm in this case will actually be a little wider than your 158 Custom.

      You could ride the 156. It’s still going to be a good length for you, and the width should be fine for 11s – but it will be wider than what you’re used to. But if you’re looking for something more playful and something for spins/butters, then the 153 is going to the better option, IMO.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  26. Hey Nate, so I’ve decided on the yes standard as my next board. I am 5’9 145-150 and an intermediate rider. I’m a us 9.5-10 and am curious if I should go with a 153 or slightly shorter.

    Reply

    • Hi Matt

      Thanks for your message. I think the 153 would work for you, but the 151 would probably be the best option for you, IMO. You are very similar specs-wise to the previous person.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  27. Hi Nate. You making good reviews and I like it. I’m stuck in choose between yes typo 158 and yes standard 156? (or maybe 153). I’m 5’10, 160lbs, intermediate to advanced rider, +18, -9 (-6), like to groom, some carve, but love playfull fellings from board, jumps and spins, buttering, and sometimes powder. Looks like full all mountain ))). Now i have capita outsiders 156, but want something with more edge holds, and more universal. Thank you.

    Reply

    • Hi Ingy

      Thanks for your message.

      I think you’ll see better edge hold from either of these boards – and a bit more versatility – especially in terms of powder.

      I think based on what you’re describing that the Typo 158 would be a good choice for you. It sounds like you like things quite playful and whilst you can still get playful on the Standard for sure, the Typo is just a bit more playful – you loose a little bit in terms of carving, speed and powder but not too much and you get some more in terms of playfull-ness. If you did decide to go with the Standard, then it’s a good idea to size down (as you are already thinking about, I see). Whether you went to 153 or 156 would depend on boot size. If you can let me know your boot size, I can more accurately recommend a size for the Standard if you want it.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

        • Hi Ingy

          I’d almost say go to 153 for the Standard. It would be better suited to your specs all round, IMO. You could get on the 156 but it’s going to be quite wide for 10s and since you wouldn’t be sizing down that much, I’d say the 153 would be better. For me (also size 10s) I like the 156 – but I’m 6’0″ 185lbs.

          But overall I think the 158 Typo is a better match for you.

          Reply

  28. Hey There Nate, awesome site man! I think I’ve hit a wall on my decision…I’m 5’8″ 165lbs and a size 8 boot. I ride as a solid intermediate and close to advanced. My choices are Never Summer West and the Yes Standard. Both great boards for sure. I ride steeps, groomers and every powder day the alberta rockies can throw at me! We unfortunately get our share of hard snow conditions so I need something with good carving ability/edge hold. I don’t hit the park too often unless my son drags me in there;-) but I will all the natural booters I can find.

    I saw some reviews on the Yes that weren’t overly happy with Standard with its new wider profile..do you find it as a positive,negative or a non issue… Also my last board is a Burton Custom GiGi and I found it super catchy..really trying to avoid that this time around. Thanks for you help Nate! great work you’re doing!

    Reply

    • Hi Chris

      Thanks for your message.

      Yeah, the Burton Custom is a traditional camber board, so no surprise that you found it catchy. I didn’t find the Standard or the West catchy at all.

      I still really like the 2018 Standard but I think you’ve got to look at it differently in terms of traditional sizing, particularly if you don’t have big feet. It does, in some cases mean there may not be a suitable size. For me, I would usually ride around a 159, 160 for an all-mountain board, but for the Standard the 156 is a better fit for me (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boot). It’s still wider than I would normally ride in the 156, but sizing down the length balanced it out for me. There are pros and cons to doing this.

      Going shorter in length brings back the agility and edge-to-edge speed that was lost in going wider – so that balances out quite well in my opinion – and having a shorter wider board I really like for the trees – and also for spins, butters that kind of thing. And even though I’m going shorter than I normal, the float in powder is just as good if not better – that extra width brings a lot of surface area. Also great stability for landings.

      But you still loose some effective edge by going shorter, which can effect stability at speed, wide carving and edge-hold but I didn’t find this was lacking in the Standard even on the shorter size.

      The West, I would size more traditionally.

      For your specs, I would say something around a 156, 157 would be a good length for a traditionally shaped all-mountain board. And in terms of width you could probably even go sub-240mm at the waist if you were using binding angles like +15/-15 (something that has a decent angle on the back foot – i.e. 12-15 degrees) and as low as 242mm if you ride with a straight back foot (i.e. 0-3 degrees). I’d probably go maximum 252mm at the waist.

      The other thing with the Standard is that it’s wider than the waist width suggests too – as the waist is cinched in.

      So I think for the Standard you’d want to go at least down to the 151 – and then I think it’s getting a little too short for you there. So, I think there’s not that suitable a size for you there.

      The West 156 would be a good bet for you, IMO. It’s still on the wider end for your boots, but it’s at a good length, IMO. You could size down to the 154 if you think you’d prefer something a little shorter, but I think the 156 would suit you better in terms of getting the most out of your powder days.

      I’d say the Standard has slightly better edge-hold in icy snow conditions, but the West is pretty good there and all you would need, I would say.

      Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.

      Reply

  29. Hey Nate,

    I’ve just received my 2018 Yes Standard in 153cm and I dont know if i’m delusional but it seems a bit too wide for me. 5’9″, 155-160lbs, size 9 boots. is the 253mm waist width too wide? i wanted a “one board quiver” type of board, but now i’m considering sending the Standard back and ordering a 152 Yes Greats. Any Suggestions?

    Reply

    • Hi Louis

      Thanks for your message.

      Yeah the Standard is a wider board for sure – and wider at the inserts than the waist width would suggest because of the “mid-bite” which basically means that it’s cinched in at the waist. It’s the kind of board that you want to size down for in terms of length. But I would put you on around a 156 usually for an all-mountain board for your specs, assuming a relatively advanced ability level – so 153 is sizing down already. It will be wide for your boots, but as it’s shorter that counteracts it. But I can understand if you want a more traditionally shaped snowboard.

      Generally speaking for 9s, I would say something between 248mm and 253mm if you have quite a straight back binding angle (i.e. 0-3 degrees) and more like 240mm to 250mm is you have a more angled back binding (e.g. 12-15 degrees). But with the Standard it’s a little wider than the 253mm waist suggests, so even with a very straight back binding, it’s still wide for 9s – but that shorter length brings back some of the maneuverability that’s lost with the wideness – and the wideness makes up for float in powder and landing stability for going shorter. Effective edge is still going to be shorter though.

      The Greats is another board that I would size down for from your all-mountain size, not because it’s wide but because it’s an all-mountain-freestyle board and because it has a lot of effective edge per length (because of short tip and tail). But i would go down to 154 if I was you, if you’re going to be using it as a one board quiver, rather than 152. You could go 152 if you’re main game was riding freestyle – but the 154 would give you more stability at speed and more float in powder.

      I would say that the Standard is a more versatile board as a one board quiver than the Greats – just that it’s going to be better for powder – the Greats biggest weakness is powder, IMO. Of course, you can ride any board in powder, but something like the Greats is just going to be a little bit more hard work keeping your nose floating in deep powder. If you don’t ride that much in deep powder, then the Greats, would be a great choice.

      Check out the following lists if you’re wanting more options – “all-mountain” boards are what I would consider to be the most versatile kind of board. If you don’t ride that much in deep powder, then something “all-mountain-freestyle” (like the YES Greats) is a good bet, IMO.

      >>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards

      >>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  30. Hey Nate, like quite a few others, I’m a little unsure about sizing the Yes Standard 2018 model. I’m 5’8 at 56kg, US boot size 9. My stance width is 53cm and binding angles are -6/+15. I’m pretty much freeride oriented, but enjoy a playful ride all over the mountain. I have tested two other boards this year including a Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 154 (2017 model) that felt a little catchy and unforgiving and probably was just a bit too long and stiff for my weight. The other board I tried was the Niche Knew 149 (2018 model), which I now really enjoy from powder to groomers due to its playful feel and easy manoeuvrability, though on very hard snow or ice the board gets very sketchy and hard to control. Was thinking, the Yes Standard could do the all-mountain trick for me, but am not sure about the sizing… What would you recommend? Thank you!

    Reply

    • Hi Toby

      Thanks for your message.

      Yeah not too surprised the 154 Mountain Twin felt a bit big. I would say something around 150cm is a good size for you for an all-mountain board.

      I think the Standard would be a good option for you. It’s something that I would usually say to size down for, unless you’ve got big feet, as it’s quite a wide board. However, moving down to the 149, it’s not as wide as it is in the other lengths. Now, it’s still going to be wider than the 245mm waist width suggests, as it’s got that “mid-bite” which basically means it’s cinched in at the waist, but it’s still going to be a good width for size 9s. I’d say perfect for 9s, so no need, IMO to size down.

      Which means that the 149 would be a really good size for you, IMO.

      Now it’s going to be a bit stiffer than the Knew and it’s camber to rocker rather than flat to rocker on the Knew – so it won’t quite be as playful as the Knew but it should be better in terms of control and edge-hold at higher speeds and in harder conditions.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  31. Hi Nate
    Appreciate all the info you provide, great site!
    I’m looking to change from my snowtrooper to something with a little more traditional camber but not full camber if that makes sense and from reviews the standard looks like a good option. I’m 6 foot and about 85kg with size 10 boots. I mainly ride in Australia so icy groomers and 10 days a year in japan, looking for something solid on groomers and good in trees and powder no park but enjoy hitting sidehits and natural jumps. Would the standard fit the bill and 156 or 159?
    Thanks in Advance
    Adam

    Reply

  32. Hi Nate,
    Really enjoy the reviews, looking to move on from my NS Snowtrooper and looking for something that I can ride on the groomers in Aus/NZ and 10 days in japan per year, like the trees no park but will boost of side hits and natural features, I’m 6 foot and size 10 boot, current board is 159. would the standard 156 still work for japan?

    Reply

    • Hi Adam

      Yeah I think the Standard could work for you. I would go for the 156. I’d usually say longer for your specs but this is quite a wide board – the kind of board that I like to size down for. I’m very similar specs to you and I really enjoyed the 156.

      In terms of powder, you get all the surface area you would expect from a longer board – in terms of powder this will float like at least a 159. So, in terms of powder no worries.

      And even though it’s wide you gain back your agility through the shorter length. It’s becoming quite a popular shape for boards and there are certainly some much more extreme versions where you can size down even up to 10cm – and some of those are super-wide! One of the advantages is getting a shorter length in the trees, which can make it easier to maneuver in there.

      You still get good stability on landings and flat basing, from that extra width. You do sacrifice a little in terms of effective edge, ultimately. So when you’re on an edge carving, that’s when you’ll notice it feeling more like a 156 – but otherwise it feels like a bigger board. It would have the surface area I would say roughly of the Snowtrooper in the 159 – so in terms of pow, you wouldn’t be loosing anything there.

      Hope this gives you more info to go off.

      Reply

    • Hi Nicu

      I wouldn’t say it’s like top of the line for big mountain/steeps riding – but it can do it for sure. It’s the kind of board that strikes a balance between riding fast, steep, carving, powder etc – with also being able to ride more freestyle-esque – jumps, switch, etc.

      Also, it would depend on the sizing you went with and that would depend on your boot size a lot for this board (as well as your height and weight of course).

      So, I would say it’s suitable but not specialized in that area.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  34. Thx for your answer. The thing is that I am looking for a board that can go off piste most of times and some times big mountains . Also it would be nice to be able to do some tricks around there like jumps, spins, etc. I also searched some information about the gnu ryders choice because I find it interesting with that magnetraction on for icy conditions on big mountains and it seems also a playfull board.
    I forgot to mention : my boot size is 9.5 , I weight around 187 (85kg) and I am 5.87 (1.79m) feet tall 🙂 What would you sugest ?
    Thank you

    Reply

    • Hi Nicu

      Yeah, if you’re looking to incorporate jumps, spins etc in the backcountry, then the Standard is a good option for that, IMO.

      Or you could check out the following too:

      >>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards

      Generally speaking, I would say something around 159, 160 for your specs and that style of riding (you could go longer if you were just riding big mountain, but I think that would be a good balance if you’re also wanting to do spins – and if you are going to be riding trees too).

      But for the Standard, it’s a wider board, so if you went with that I think the 156 would be the better size for you – it would be the better balance of length and width in that size for your specs, IMO.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  35. Nate,

    Your reviews and insights are stellar! I’ve read through nearly all of them to avoid having to ask a question. However, here I am about to ask. After a lifetime of skiing, I picked up snowboarding two years ago. Now, I’m 43 y.o. and have begun to exceed the limits of my 155 beginner board (too short, I know). I spend about 10-12 days a year on the mountain (half east coast ice or slush, half west coast or Canada). I typically spend my time on the groomers, but I am beginning to explore and enjoy deep powder. I don’t proactively seek out jumps, rails, etc. I just like to ride stable with occasional speed and I really only want one board in my “quiver”. I would suggest I am a 5 on your skill level chart (solid on blue’s, cautious on black diamond’s).
    My specs: 6 ft., 195 lbs. (+ or -5 lbs. around the holidays), just pre-ordered 11.5 (US) the Burton (Photon) Step On’s for the fall (getting harder to bend over all the time), and typically ride 12/-9. Based on your reviews, I really like how the Yes Standard sounds and looks. Finding one this late in the season is a challenge though. Given my dimensions/rider style, should I consider an available 156? Or, should I consider another option like Jones MT or UMT (which I can only find a 158W)? Or, hold out for next seasons boards?

    Your advice is most welcome!

    Thanks,
    Tim

    Reply

    • Hi Tim

      Thanks for your message.

      For your specs, style and ability, I think something around 160 would be a good length. 155 is too short for you now, but not bad as a beginner size.

      For the Standard, I think the 159 would be the best size for you – and since you have 11.5s, it would be a good width too, IMO. I’d say you’d fit on the 156 too, in terms of width – I measured the inserts of the 2019 model (156) and it was 270mm and I’d say you’d want to go at least 268mm at the inserts with Burton 11.5s, so I think you’d be ok there, but I think the 159 would be a better size for you and the width would certainly still be appropriate (likely to be around 275mm at the inserts).

      I’d say you’d be fine on the 158W Mountain Twin as well, in terms of width. It’s just whether the 158W or 161W would be the better option size-wise. Though the 158W Mountain Twin isn’t too much shorter, in terms of effective edge than the 159 Standard (1180mm vs 1188mm) – so it’s not way off, and might be an easier transition from your 155 than the 161 would be. The Ultra Mountain Twin is noticeably stiffer than the Mountain Twin, so whether that would be too stiff, would be my only concern with that – but the Mountain Twin would certainly be appropriate.

      So yeah, if you were to go Standard, I would hold out to get a 159. For the Mountain Twin, it’s whether you think the 158W or 161W would be a better size.

      Pros and Cons

      ~ 158W would be an easier transition, more agile at slower speeds and feel a little softer flex-wise (but that can be a pro or a con) – and better in the trees.

      ~ 161W would be more stable at high speed, float better in powder and be better for long wide carves

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

      • Nate,

        Your wise offerings will not go unheeded! I am grateful for your input and have decided to go with the Jones Mountain Twin 158W. I too believe based on your suggestions this would be the easier transition. I’ll move along in a couple more years to the next generation (and size) when I further improve my “skills”.

        Thanks for taking the time to help me out. You’re a true gentleman and a definitive snowboard scholar!

        Stay strong,
        Tim

        Reply

  36. Hey Nate,

    I’m 5’4″, 125lbs, and wear a size 7.5US boot. All I can find right now is the 151, but I’m thinking that the 149 would be more appropriate for me. I don’t do much park, but I still do maybe one run in the park per trip. I focus more on carving and riding groomers, and I love pow when it comes. I’m on the east coast, so I’m riding ice more often. I go for a one week trip each year, and try to go for day trips over the weekend when it snows. Would buying the 151 for $425 be worth it, or should I wait for next season for a 149?

    Thanks,
    Cody

    Reply

    • Hi Cody

      Thanks for your message.

      I think the 149 is going to be worth waiting for. For your specs it’s the better length and width, IMO. I know it’s only 2cm, but it does make a difference, especially when you couple that with the width. Up to you of course, but I’d wait until you can grab a 149 (the 2019 model has a lighter core too, which is a nice upgrade from the 2018 model).

      Reply

      • Nate,

        I figured that the 149 was the better option. There was just a part of me hoping that you’d say the 151 is a good choice, just because I want to buy it so badly. I guess I’ll wait and see if I can get a good deal on the 2019 149 model.

        Thanks,
        Cody

        Reply

        • Hi Cody

          Yeah, sometimes it’s hard to be patient, when you find a board you want – but yeah, I think it will be worth the wait to get the 149

          Reply

  37. Hey Nate!

    I’m a solid intermediate rider who charges on east coast groomers and loves side hits. I’ll take runs through medium parks and jib lines. I currently have a Never Summer Proto 2 154, but have been going out west more frequently and want a board that suits my riding style that can ride a bit faster and handle powder better. I won’t say that I’m amazing at riding powder (living on the east coast), but I love tree runs, drop, and natural booters (though I probably don’t charge as hard as I would on groomers and parks).

    I’m 5’8″, 155lbs, 9.5 boots, +15/-12. What size of the 2018 Standard would be good for my riding style? As you see with the Proto, I could probably ride a 152 and would have a ton of fun (because I do like to do tricks around side hits and presses), but at higher speeds, I feel like it gets a bit washy at times. Don’t know if the 153 would be too big due to it’s width? Yes’s website says to ride your normal size range, but in your comments to peeps, it seems like you think the additional volume is fairly significant. Appreciate any insight you may have!

    Reply

    • Hi Ricky

      Thanks for your message (and sorry for the delayed reply, have been on vacation).

      Personally I think the 153 would be the best size for your specs, ability, style, for the Standard. As an advanced rider, on a typically shaped all-mountain board, I would say more like 155, 156, but for this particular board I do think it’s a good idea to size down a little. Not something that I would recommend sizing down a lot, like some boards that are wider and more designed to be short/wides, but it is one that I think is a good idea to size down a little bit.

      The 153 Standard should have a little extra surface area than the 154 PT2. That plus a longer nose and a directional volume twin shape should help it to float noticeably better than your 154 PT2, IMO, which isn’t great in powder (IMO). In terms of stability at speed, I rode the 156 (the 2018 and more recently 2019 version) and I found it nice and stable at speed (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10) – not a full on bomber but pretty good. But then I also found the PT2 (157) pretty good at speed too (though the Standard just a little better).

      You would obviously get a little more out of the 156 in terms of float in powder and stability at speed if those things were like the only things you wanted, but you would sacrifice a little in terms of agility (particularly nice to have in trees) and in terms of more freestyle things like side hits and spins etc.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Hey Nate!

        Not a problem at all! Hope you had a great vacation! I actually had to pull the trigger a day before you responded because there were other people interested in the board…and I’m glad I did!! Thank you so much for your input! It really gives me the additional confidence that I made the right choice!

        Keep up the great work on this site! I’m sure everyone really appreciates what you do, just s I do! Thanks again!

        Reply

        • Hi Ricky

          You’re very welcome. If you think of it, let me know how you get on once you’ve had a chance to ride it.

          Reply

  38. Hello Nate,

    Seeing all these comments, I’d like to get some advice on a dilemma I have been having.
    I currently ride a Arbor Coda Camber 156cm with a US 9 boot.
    The area that I ride in tends to drop a ton of pow, which my current board is struggling with.
    I ride hard, carve and slash, pop off natural lips, tree runs. Looking to do more freestyle moves in back country.
    I’m torn between the Capita BSOD and the Yes Standard as the Standard can ride switch better but the Capita BSOD seems to float better and carve better? (Not looking at the Yes PYL as it is out of stock here)

    Any advice on comparing the two 2018 editions for what I like to do?

    Reply

    • Hi Able

      Thanks for your message. I would say the following about the differences between these 2.

      1. The BSOD is a little better in powder, IMO. But if you were to put the Standard into the slam back inserts I’d say it gets close – but probably still not quite as good as the BSOD in powder – but decent enough. And both would be better in pow than the Coda Camber, IMO.

      2. THe BSOD is a little stiffer, in my experience. Even though YES rate the Standard as 7/10 for flex, it felt more like a 6/10 to me – and Capita rate the BSOD as a 6.5/10 but it felt more like a 7/10 to me, even 7.5 – so despite their ratings, I would say that the BSOD is the stiffer board.

      3. Overall I preferred the Standard for jumps, butters, presses, spins – most of the freestyle stuff

      4. Overall I would say that the Standard is more freestyle focused than the BSOD, which is more freeride focused – even though it’s changed recently from being an out and out freeride board to being more of a do-it-all board, it’s still at the freeride end of the do-it-all specturm, whereas the Standard is more at the Freestyle end of “do-it-all” if that makes sense.

      5. In terms of speed and carving, there’s not really a lot in it. They both performed well there, for me. If I had to choose, I’d say the BSOD just a touch ahead in those areas.

      6. Not for 2018 but for the 2019 models, I weighed both of these boards and the 156 Standard weighed 2880 grams (18.46 grams/cm) and the 159 BSOD weighed 2700grams (16.98 grams/cm). Not sure if that has any baring on your decision but that’s some extra info in case you were wondering on that. The Standard isn’t heavy by any means though – it’s about average in terms of weight (based on the boards that I weighed) – it’s just that the BSOD (and Capita boards in general) is super light.

      7. Also to note, the 156 Standard is 270mm at the inserts (a wide board for it’s waist width – 258mm at the waist) and the 159 BSOD is 268mm at the inserts (256mm at the waist). Also wide for its waist. This was for the 2019 models, but I think the 2018 models are the same in that sense. Converting to other sizes, the width at the inserts would be roughly 12mm larger than the waist width. But I’ve found that they both didn’t feel like wide boards (even though a lot of boards that are considered wide wouldn’t be much wider at the inserts than this, they felt more agile – that waist width being a little narrower definitely makes a difference there I think). But this is going from a US10, so could be slightly different.

      For getting more freestyle in the backcountry, the Standard is what I would choose – but for the backcountry generally speaking, I’d more likely go for the BSOD.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  39. Hi Nate,

    I’ve got a 2018 153cm Standard, which I find is good for riding pow and the jump line in the park, but don’t like how it jibs (feels too stiff) and the stance options are too narrow for my preferred 22.5 stance (I’m on the back slam back inserts and front inserts). I’m Looking for an all mountain freestyle boards that that excels in the jump line in the park that can also tackle the jib line. I’m thinking a 2019 Greats. Is there a noticeable difference between the 2019 Greats and 2018 Standard? Is there other boards I should be Looking at such as a Box Knife, Head Space, Outer Space? I’m 170 pounds, 5,8 and an advanced rider.
    Cheers, Mark

    Reply

  40. Hi Nate,

    I’ve got a 153cm 2018 Standard which is great for pow and riding the jump line in the park, but not great jibbing (feels too stiff). I’m looking for an all mountain freestyle board that’s still rips all mountain and the jump line, but can handle jibs Better than the Standard. I’m considering a 2019 Greats, is there a substantial difference between the standard & Greats? Is there other 2019 model boards I should be considering like the Lib Tech box Knife/terrain wrecker, GNU head space, Capita outer space living, Never Summer Peace Maker (heard NS boards lose life after 30 days?) I’m 170 pounds, 5’8 with 8.5US boots and an advance rider.
    Cheers, Mark

    Reply

    • Hi Mark

      Thanks for your message.

      I would say that the main differences between the 2018 Standard and the 2019 Greats are:

      1. The Greats is a little softer flexing – not by heaps but a little. By my feel, the Standard feels like a 6/10 and the Greats a 5/10. Though YES rates both boards at a 7/10 flex.

      2. The Greats 2019 has a 2-4-2 camrock profile – which means 4mm of camber (between the feet and under the inserts) and 2mm of rocker on the tail and 2mm of rocker on the nose. The Standard 2018 (and the Standard 2019) has a 3-4-3 – so a little more rocker tip and tail.

      3. The Greats 2019 is likely a little lighter than the 2018 Standard. The Greats, Standard & Ghost all got new lighter cores for 2019. I weighed the 2019 models when I demoed them but I didn’t weight the 2018 models so I couldn’t say how much lighter they are objectively speaking – but they did feel lighter to me.

      4. The Greats has an asymmetrical sidecut – not that that’s going to affect jibbing really

      5. They have different sidecuts – but again, not really something that’s going to affect jibs.

      6. The Greats is a true twin (or at least asymmetrical twin) whereas the Standard is a Directional Volume Twin (almost true twin but not quite).

      The 2019 Greats is more similar to the 2018 Standard than the 2018 Greats was, because it now has mid-bite like the Standard, but there are quite a few difference.

      I found the 2019 Greats a little nicer to jib than the 2019 Standard (and the 2018 Standard) and I think the main thing is just that it’s that little bit softer flexing. But there’s not a big difference between the 2 jib wise. I found both pretty good though, but not great. Though it’s quite hard to find an all-mountain-freestyle board or anything that has a 5+ flex that’s easy on jibs, to be fair. And typically you’re looking at around that 5/10 mark for all-mountain-freestyle as you want some stiffness for the all-mountain stuff, especially if you like to carve/bomb.

      I would rate the Standard 3/10 for jibs and the Greats 3.5/10 for jibs, if that helps.

      The box knife I also found fine for jibs. Better than I thought given that it’s mostly camber – it’s a bit softer flexing (4/10 by my feel) which certainly helps, but still 3.5/5 I’d say, but I like some flat areas or rockered zones for jibbing personally – but certainly an option if you’re looking for something softer flexing that can still handle the mountain. You can read more of what I thought of the Box Knife at the link below:

      >>Lib Tech Box Knife Review

      If you were going to keep the standard and get a specialized board for the jibs, then there are obviously a lot of good options for that (Lib Tech Box Scratcher, Capita Ultrafear, Burton Name Dropper, K2 WWW), but you will have to compromise a little on jib performance if you want everything in one board.

      Unfortunately I didn’t get on a terrain wrecker to demo (tried to) but I would say it’s not going to be better than the Greats/Box Knife there.

      You could check out these more freestyle/park oriented boards and see if you think something like that would be good enough over the rest of the mountain:

      Top 10 Freestyle Snowboards

      And here’s my all-mountain-freestyle list (note that this is a 2018 model list – I preferred the 2019 Greats on jibs – not sure why, but maybe that wider, more stable platform with the change in width):

      Top 5 All-Mountain Freestyle Snowboards

      But yeah, in terms of what I would consider all-mountain-freestyle I can’t think of anything that’s better than the Greats for jibs, that’s still good all over the mountain, maybe the Box Knife is just a touch better, but then it’s not as good on the rest, IMO.

      In terms of size, I think 153 is the best size for you for the Standard (154 for the Greats – or even 151 if you wanted it to be easier on jibs, but would then sacrifice a little elsewhere (e.g. stability at speed)).

      I don’t earn any Never Summer boards, so I don’t know how they go in terms of durability or liveliness over time, but riding them late in the demo season (where they’ve probably been ridden around 30 days) I’ve never had issues with them – but yeah I couldn’t say for sure about that. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to get on the Peacemaker, but it certainly looks like it would be pretty good on jibs – I’d say similar to the Funlsinger (which I rate 4/10 on jibs). It’s just whether it could hack it with the rest of the Mountain. It looks like it’s basically a non-asym Funslinger, with a different sidecut. But it does have “BLower Stance” inserts (similar to the Standards “Slam Back”).

      Anyway, hope that gives you more info to go off

      Reply

  41. hey quick question. intermediate freeride on northeast with trips out west 2 times a year. i like going through trees if available otherwise just enjoying the mountain. my stats: 188 lbs, size 12 boot, 6’2. local store has a Yes Standard in 159 and a Capita Mercury in 159 as well. I cant decide between the two and because of my foot size and weight, i was wondering if those are decent options. their 40% off so kinda helps the wallet. just wondering about the difference between the two boards and which would be the best option. Thanks in advance!

    Reply

    • Hey Iggz

      Thanks for your message and apologies for the slow response (currently preparing for the imminent arrival of the birth of my son!)

      I think both would do the job. I would maybe be leaning towards the Standard for you, just because it’s really good in hard/icy snow, in my experience, and if you’re going to be getting a fair bit of that out East, you might appreciate that. In terms of width as well, I think the Mercury is probably too narrow for you, whereas the 159 Standard should be fine for 12s.

      For your specs, I’d ordinarily say a little longer than 159, but with the Standard, I think 159 is actually a good size for you.

      And here’s a few things I would say are the main differences between the Standard and Mercury:

      1. The Standard is wider – not only is it 263mm at the waist vs 259mm at the waist of the 159 Mercury, it’s also 310mm tip and tail vs 303mm on the Mercury. That plus the mid-bite (which makes the waist cinched in) means that the width at the inserts will be a good bit wider on the Standard vs the Mercury

      2. The Mercury is a directional twin (has a longer nose than tail) whereas the Standard is a “directional volume twin” which is pretty close to being true twin, but has just a little bit more volume in the nose compared to the tail – but the length and width of the nose is the same as the length and width of the tail.

      3. The Mercury is a little stiffer from my experience, but not by heaps. I would say Standard 6/10, Mercury 6.5/10.

      They both have a hybrid camber profile (camber between and under the feet with rocker towards tip and tail).

      Overall, I would say that the Standard is a little more freestyle oriented and the Mercury a little more freeride oriented, but both are what I would call “all-mountain” and can do a bit of everything. A few differences but performance-wise quite similar, IMO.

      In terms of powder, I’d say the Standard in the slam back inserts is a little better but centered not quite as good as the Mercury. So when you go out West, if you get a powder day, you can always set the Standard back for better performance in powder.

      Hope this helps with your decision.

      Reply

  42. Hi Nate
    Need a new board & have narrowed it down to Yes Standard, Rossignol One Lf & Ride Twinpig/Warpig
    Intermediate rider, mainly ice/hard pack, occasional powder, just cruising all over doing a bit of everything, 5’11” 175 lbs size us12, what would you recommend
    Like my stance quite wide, was thinking the standard in 156 but worried that it only goes to 23.1 ”
    Also the Rossi sounds great, just wandering why you chose that board over the standard that tops your list
    By the way best advice & info out there by a mile
    Cheers Phil

    Reply

    • Hi Phil

      Thanks for your message.

      Because you’re in icy conditions regularly, I think you’ll appreciate either the Standard or the One LF over the Warpig/Twinpig. I haven’t ridden the latter in hard/icy conditions but based on what others say they wouldn’t be as good in hard/icy conditions.

      Size-wise, I think the 156 would be a good length for you for the Standard. Width-wise you should be OK with 12s, but if you have boots with a longer outersole or if you ride with quite a straight back binding it might be pushing it being too narrow. But if you ride with something similar to +15/-15 and/or have low profile boots, should be fine.

      For the One LF, the 157W would be your best bet, IMO and should be fine for any binding angle, width-wise.

      The One LF goes out to 24.8″ on the 157W, so if you wanted to go wider than the 23.1″ on the 156 Standard, then it’s probably a better option. YES have gone with narrow stances for a lot of their boards, recently.

      The reason I bought the One LF, is basically for demo reasons. It’s a very consistent board and a very “normal” board. So it basically makes for something that is easy to test against. I use it as my standard and test and compare every other board I ride against. Also, it’s something that hasn’t changed much over the years (2019 model is basically still the same as the 2016 model), so it has that consistency about it too. I would love to have the Standard in my quiver (and likely will one day!).

      So yeah, the width and stance options of the Rossi give you more options in terms of binding angles and stance widths, so that’s probably the safest option. The 156 Standard would work for you with certain restrictions.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  43. Hi Nate! I’m looking at getting a new board. Am looking for an all Mountain board that’s can handle a bit of everything. I have a dedicated powder board already. Am a bigger guy 220lb plus big feet 13us feet. I lot of the dedicated wide boards are way stiff, not much play in them and are good for charging but not fun and playful. Also most snowboard company’s wide snowboards wide board waist is 26.2 and that is just enough but to be honest is still a bit narrow when you do deep carves and when it’s very speep. A waist of 26.8 is probably about right more or less.

    The question what other options are there for an all Mountain board that has a waist of around 26.8 is there that’s NOT a plank? (Not sure if there is much else) the 162 Yes standard could be the one for me!?

    O definitely prefer camber

    Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Ed

      Thanks for your message.

      They do certainly tend to make “big guy” boards more burly, typically. But there are some options. The Standard being a great option, IMO. And the width at the inserts on the Standard are probably around 280mm, 281mm (based on what they are on the 156 (258mm waist, 270mm insert width). That should be a good width for you, I would say, especially if you don’t ride with too straight a back binding.

      The Nitro Team Gullwing comes in a 162W with a 270mm waist, which should be plenty. And the inserts are likely to be around 280mm at the back insert and 278mm at the front insert – based on the 159 having a 252 waist and being 260 at the inserts. Though not entirely sure about the ratios on the wider boards for Nitro.

      The Rossignol One 161W (which my brother owns) has a 266mm waist width and is 281mm at the back insert and 278mm at the front insert. My bros never had any drag issues on it – though he’s in 12s rather than 13s – and low profile boots. But I think that would also be a good width.

      The Mountain Twin is another board that tends to be quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist. The 157 has a 253mm waist and is 266mm at the inserts. The 164W is 262 at the waist, but is likely around 275mm at the back insert. Jones boards do tend to have a wide reference stance though – you may or may not like that.

      Also note that there are some Lib Tech and GNU boards around that length with waist widths around 267, 268. But be a little careful with those as from the ones that I’ve measured, the difference between waist and inserts on GNU and Lib Tech tends to only be around 5-6mm. So for example, the GNU Rider’s Choice 157.5cm has a 255mm waist and is 260mm at the inserts. So, the 162W for that board is likely around 273mm at the inserts, even though it’s 268mm at the waist.

      That’s a few options for boards that are all-mountain and not too stiff/aggressive, looking in and around that 162 length. Not sure what you’re length range is, but there would certainly be more options in longer lengths. And more options in those lengths too. I can dig a little deeper, if you don’t see anything that appeals there. Those are some off the top of my head that I knew were quite wide.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Thanks Nate, good response. Interesting what you mentioned about lib tech. Is it because of a different sidecut or just that they are just Abit wider in general. Rossignol One would be a good option just it’s such an ugly looking board. The Jones mountain twin has a relatively narrow waist 26.2 it’s interesting that you mentioned at the insert packs it’s wider. How is that? Thanks again for your input ?

        Reply

        • Hi Ed

          A number of things can influence the difference in width at the inserts compared to at the waist. In some cases the sidecut is a tighter radius from width to inserts than it is from inserts to contact points. In some cases there is a magnetraction bump or something right at the waist of the board, which makes the waist width sound wider than it really it is. This is the case with a lot of Niche boards. Also different stance widths can effect this. If the reference stance (or just where you choose to have your stance) is wider, then your bindings will be closer to the contact points – i.e. on a wider part of the board. For Jones a lot of the extra width at the inserts comes from the fact that there’s a wider reference stance. For the Standard (and other YES boards with mid-bite) it’s the mid bite that they have (which cinches the board in at the waist).

          Yeah the 2019 Rossignol One is ugly – not sure why they went for that graphic.

          Reply

  44. O had a look a Jones web they have a page recommeding big feet they said the waist needs to be over 26.3 if us11.5. the Jones explorer is a possibility then.

    Reply

    • Hey Ed

      Yeah, I didn’t think of the Explorer but that’s definitely an option too. Not one that I’ve had a chance to measure at the inserts – but if it’s like the other Jones boards I’ve measured then it should be a good width at the inserts with a 264mm waist. And it’s the kind of board that you can get a little playful on too – but also quite aggressive when you want to be.

      >>Jones Explorer Review

      Reply

  45. Thanks again Nate, would the Malavitas & Vans Aura work with this board? just that i can get them cheap at the mo, no worries if not & any thoughts on the Mahar Lumberjack

    Cheers Phil

    Reply

    • Hi Phil

      That’s the exact bindings and boots I rode the 2019 model in! So yeah those definitely work with the board. I think in an ideal world, boots that have a little more stiffness than the Auras – which I would say are around a 4.5/10 flex – just a little softer than medium. Ideally something closer to a 6/10. But that’s getting pretty fussy – the Auras worked well for me with the Standard.

      I have zero knowledge/experience with Mahar boards, unfortunately.

      Reply

  46. Thanks Nate I like your thinking! It’s a very good point about magnetraction possiblity for giving the impression of a wider waist than it could be! Also for a bigger footed guy it’s quite hard to figure out what board it right! Many are just too stiff! I don’t mind a stiff board but in general you don’t need to ride a plank! Cheers dude ??

    Reply

  47. Hi Nate

    Sorry to bother you again. Did you notice any difference between last year’s 2-4-2 vs this year’s 3-4-3 ? More rocker this year. I guess to make it more different than the ghost snowboard, and maybe make it slightly better in pow. What’s your thoughts on this? Personally I would prefer 2-4-2. thanks again

    Reply

    • Hi Ed

      Thanks for your message.

      As far as I’m aware the 2018 model had the 3-4-3 Camrock profile – it was the 2017 model that had the 2-4-2 (and was a very different board in a couple of other ways too). That’s what my catalog says anyway, I didn’t measure the camber on it. My catalog could have been wrong though if you have info that contradicts that. Either way, I didn’t specifically feel a difference in terms of camber profile. To me the 2019 felt very similar to the 2018 model – but felt a little snappier/livelier, which I put down to the board being lighter for the 2019 model.

      The Ghost is all camber (4-5mm), so regardless it’s quite difference – but I get your point that 3-4-3 is more different to full camber than 2-4-2.

      Reply

  48. Hi Nate, I was hoping if you could advise me on the sizing.
    I am 5”11, 200lbs, US 11-11.5 boots, riding +15 -9. Looking for all mountain, responsive board – 80% groomers and 20% freeride = no park. I am choosing between 159 Yes standard and 159 capita mercury. Whoch one would be more suitable for my specs? Thank you

    Reply

    • Hi Reme

      For the Standard I agree that the 159 would be the best size for you. For the Mercury I’d say the 161 would be your best bet, especially given that you’re not riding park. But you could ride the 159 Mercury, if you think you prefer a slightly shorter length. The width of the 159 Mercury should be fine for your boots with those binding angles – like the Standard, the Mercury is relatively wide at the inserts, compared to the waist, especially if you’re on 11s. Would be a little tighter with 11.5s but should still be fine.

      But yeah between the 159 Standard and 159 Mercury, I think the 159 Standard would be more suitable for your specs.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

        • Hi Reme

          In my experience the Standard is a little quicker edge-to-edge. It’s not as quick as the 2017 model of the Standard was but it’s still pretty nippy and I’d say just a little nippier than the Mercury – but not by heaps.

          Reply

  49. Hi Nate,
    I’ve been riding a Burton Custom X Flying V for the last couple years in a 158 and I’m 5’9 210 size 10 boot. Looking at getting a standard for this year but am hesitant to get the 159 because sometimes the Burton felt too big for me. I was riding a standard Custom X in a 156 before that and it felt good.

    Reply

    • Hi Sean

      Thanks for your message.

      It’s a tough one between the 156 and the 159 for you for this board.

      One one hand, I think the 159 is definitely a better length for you. Even though you felt the 158 Custom X Flying V sometimes felt too long, I don’t think you’d have that issue with the 159 Standard. This is because the effective edge on the 158 Custom X Flying V is 1232mm and the effective edge on the 159 Standard is 1188mm, which is considerably shorter. So even though it’s overall length is longer, the effective edge being shorter, will make it feel shorter overall (on groomers anyway). Even the 156 Custom X has more effective edge (1212mm) than the 159 Standard – so I don’t think you’d have any issue with the length of the 159.

      One the other hand, the width of the 156 is better for you, so there’s an argument for that size on that basis. However, overall, I think the 159 would be the better size for you.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  50. Hey Nate,

    I’m 5’11” and 145 pounds with a size 9 boot. I’m stuck between the 153 and the 156 and I’d like some help choosing between the two. I’m leaning towards the 153 due to the board being a bit wider but I’m concerned about float in powder at that length.

    My other question is whether I would be able to use the slamback inserts with Burton Cartel bindings. I’m unfamiliar with Burton bindings and the ReFlex disk they use as I’ve solely ridden Unions all my life and am concerned it won’t be able to reach the slambacks. If not, it’s not the end of the world.

    Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hi Brooks

      Thanks for your message.

      For this board, I would say the 153 is the best bet for you. The 156 would, of course float better in powder. But the other advantages of going 153 would outweigh the extra float, IMO. And the 153 should float fine for you at your weight and with that extra width, IMO.

      I haven’t put Burton bindings in the Slam backs on the Standard but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have any issues doing that. Reflex discs are compatible for 4 x 4 binding insert patterns and I’m pretty sure that’s what all you need to get on the Slam Backs. You wouldn’t be able to use the Slam Backs with a mini-disc (like what’s featured on a lot of Union bindings) since they don’t accommodate that 4 x 4 pattern, but Reflex discs should work fine.

      The only thing with ReFlex discs is that you can’t really micro-adjust your stance width as the disc can only be used vertically and not horizontally, so you can only adjust your stance width by 2cm intervals per binding (on a 2 x 4 binding system) but that shouldn’t cause any issues getting on the slam backs.

      Hope this helps/makes sense

      Reply

  51. Hey Nate,

    First of all I want to thank you for your website as it is incredibly informative and interesting to read!

    I am struggling to purchase my first board. I was actually looking forward to Slash Brainstorm but there is no 2018 model left and it’s pretty hard to buy one outside of US.

    My question is simple, will Yes! Standard be good for me?
    I’d say that I am an intermediate rider, usually ride for 1-2 weeks per season and it will be my 5th winter snowboarding.

    I used to do groomers and ride in the resorts but got really tired of it. I have started a bit of freeriding 2 seasons ago, riding in the trees and little bit of park (ollies, small kickers and boxes) I am not a big fun of speed to be honest and don’t like to bomb hills.

    Looking for something mid-stable/stable which I can play with on the hill 65% of the time and at the same time can go to the trees and ride in powder 35% of the time.

    I wonder if Yes! Standard is a good board for me. I am a little bit afraid of it’s stiffness and that it might feel like a ‘tank’. Looking for something responsive, quick edge to edge, etc. I’ve tried Burton Process Flying V and I’d say it is not for me. It is too lose for me in terms of carving and general riding. I couldn’t press enough to have a nice term and it was trying to slip out all the time. But I did like the flex and it’s forgiveness. May I look for the same in Yes! Standard?

    Please let me know your opinion cause I value it a lot.

    Best regards,

    Alex

    Reply

    • Hi Alex

      Thanks for your message.

      The Standard could work for you. It’s definitely not a tank, IMO. There’s certainly some flex there and it’s something that’s easier to press than you would think, looking at the flex rating. Certainly a more stable ride than the Process Flying V. It is stiffer than the Process Flying V, but not by a huge amount, but noticeably.

      In terms of powder, the Standard is really good in powder, when using the slam back inserts. So, if you are OK with the idea of moving your bindings for powder days, then this will work well for your powder days. It’s still decent riding powder centered but it will be much better setback.

      And yeah certainly more edge-hold than the the Process Flying V.

      In terms of quickness edge-to-edge, it’s pretty fast but not lightning fast. And I’ve heard some who have smaller boot sizes feel like it’s a little slow edge-to-edge. If there’s a size that is suitable for you, then it’s fast enough edge-to-edge, but you would want to make sure you get a suitable size. If you could let me know your height, weight and boot size, then I can determine if I think there is a suitable size for you, for this board, if you would like.

      If there’s not a suitable size, or if you’re looking at other options, then I would consider the Never Summer West. It’s something that’s going to feel a little looser than the Standard but not as loose as the Process Flying V. And depending on your specs, there might be a better size in that one. But yeah if you can let me know your specs, then I can make a better recommendation.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

      • Thank you for the reply!

        I am around 165 pounds with height of 5’11. I wear Burton boots 10US size.

        Should I go for 156 or 159?

        Regards, Alex

        Reply

        • Hi Alex

          I would go for the 156 for sure. For this particular board, I think the 159 would be too long for you. For some boards you could ride 159, but for the Standard I would go 156 if I was you.

          Reply

          • Thank you, now I am almost sure I gonna purchase it if no one bought it while I am thinking 🙂

            You mentioned Never Summer West, I also took a look at it before and there is Never Summer Proto Type Two. What do you think of those two? Would they fit better my needs or should I just go with Yes! Standard?

            By the way, is Yes! Standard forgiving enough? I just hate catching edge on traditional camber boards which are widely used for rent.

            Thank you again.

          • Hi Alex

            The West would certainly be suitable, the Proto Type Two would be as well in most aspects, but it wouldn’t serve you as well in powder as the West or Standard.

            The Standard has a reasonable amount of rocker tip and tail, which you certainly notice. And I have never found it to feel catchy.

  52. Hey Nate. Quick question…I’m going to buy a standard and i’m questioning the size to get as I don’t have the luxury of trying them out. I’m 6’2, 185LBS, and size 12 boot. I’m assuming for me the 159 and 162 are going to be pretty interchangeable. Or do you think one would be more ideal with the given specs? Thanks

    Reply

    • Hi Jake

      Thanks for your message.

      I agree that the debate is between the 159 and 162 for you. And I agree that both could work. A couple of things to consider:

      1. What are you’re binding angles? If you ride with something like a +15/-15 or anything with a rear binding angle that’s like 6 degrees or more, then I would say you’d be fine width-wise on the 159. It is wider than the average board, even compared to the waist width, but even so, if you ride with a very straight back foot, it might be pushing it with 12s, on the 159. All good on the 162 though regardless of angles, for sure.

      2. The 162 is going to naturally be better in powder, more stable at speed and be better for deep, wide carves (IMO).

      3. The 159 is going to be better for trees, more maneuverable at slower speeds in general, better for more freestyle aspects (jumps, spins, boxes, rails etc).

      So depending on binding angles, the 162 might be the better size, but if you have both options width-wise, then it might come down to 2. and 3. above. The other thing is personal preference too. If you know that you prefer shorter or longer, that’s also a factor.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  53. Hi Nate!
    I have bought Yes! Standard 2018 and currently looking for the bindings. As I understand I shouldn’t look at ones with mini disks cause I won’t be able to use Slamback stance with 4×4 mount for powder days. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I don’t really want to spend too much money and go for the best on the market, looking for something around $150.

    I have narrowed my choice to these ones: K2 Formula, Union T-100, Union Flite Pro and a bunch of Rome bindings: 390 boss, D.O.D, United.

    Which one do you think would be the best option? I am truly open for the other options if you have something in mind.

    Best regards,

    Alex

    P.S. I wear 10US Burton boots so I don’t really have to look at compatibility between bindings and boots, right?

    Reply

    • Hi Alex

      Thanks for your message.

      Yeah, if you want to use those slam backs, then you’ll have to get something without a mini disc.

      I would cross off the Flite Pros and T-100s because they are going to be too soft to be a good flex match for the Standard.

      The K2 Formula is a good flex match.

      I don’t currently test Rome bindings but the 390 Boss (6/10 flex rating) and D.O.D (7/10 flex rating) would be a good match, assuming accurate flex ratings. The United is probably too soft though.

      Another option could be Burton Mission if you can find past season models for that price range.

      You should still check sizes to make sure that you’re in the right range for the sizings for the particular brand. For Burton bindings you’re best to go M but for K2 you should go large and for Union you could ride M or L.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  54. Hi Nate,

    I‘m an intermediate rider, 6,1 feet, 167 lbs.

    I prefer riding groomers (nice curves, not too fast), in the future maybe also some pow. No park.

    Burton Step on Binding Size L with Burton Photon Boa Boots Size 11.

    Which board size do you recommend?

    Thanx!

    Reply

    • Hi Ralf

      Thanks for your message.

      I think the 156 would work best for you for this board. You could definitely ride the 159 and that wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I would be leaning towards 156.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  55. Hi Nate,
    Thanks for such detailed reviews. I’m wondering if a 149 Standard would accommodate a size 10 boot. I typically ride 15/15, sometimes bump the back angle down to 12. I think 149 is best for my height and weight, at 5’7” , 120lbs, but get worried about shorter boards not being wide enough.

    Also, would the typo hold any advantages for my specs? Looking for a nice northeast all-mountain ride and like to spend a lot of time in the trees.

    Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hi Suds

      Thanks for your message.

      I agree that the 149 would be the best length for you – and I think this would would suit your riding style, based on what you’re describing.

      Usually I would say that a 245mm waist would be too narrow for 10s. But you just might get away with it on the Standard. In saying that it’s still a close call. Based on my measurements from the 156 Standard, I would predict that the width at inserts on the 149 would be around 257mm. I also ride 10s and I’ve ridden boards as narrow as this and haven’t noticed any boot drag. But I was riding low profile (Vans) boots and +15/-15 angles. I wouldn’t want to go any narrower than that even with low profile and those angles. But I didn’t have issues.

      So, I think you could certainly get away with it, but not guarantees as it’s a close call. Though if there aren’t any drag issues, you’d certainly be getting good leverage on those edges being on the narrow end of things, which would be good for quick turns in the trees.

      The Typo I would say would have a very similar width at inserts, even though it’s wider at the waist. I would say Typo would certainly suit what you’re describing and would be a better option if you’re more of a beginner. But the Standard is a more dynamic board, and if you’re more advanced, which it sounds like you are, I think that would be the better option.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  56. Hi I’m looking at buying this board and was wondering your opinion. I’m 160 at 5,11 and my boot size is 11. I normally like smaller boards but just wanting your opinion. Thanks.

    Reply

    • Hi Keaton

      Thanks for your message.

      I think the 156 would be your best bet. If you had like under 10s boots, you could even go as short as 153 for this board. But for you I wouldn’t go to that. I think the 156 would be the ideal size for this board for you.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

  57. Hi Nate,

    I read every single post here twice and ordered an 159 standard. Now I just wanna give smth. back. I am not a crude beginner, I get down every piste without falling (up to red, blacks are still out of range) and I manage maximum two turns on switch before going down. So all in all not a very secure riding. So I had the feeling it might be too much of a board for me. But nonetheless I took this board, because for me it seemed to have the right mix of specs (based on descriptions). I have boots in size US13, weight-75lbs and height-6,1 ft. (US13, 77kg, 187cm – the imperial sizes are approximates). I also wanted be sure I can enjoy powder when I get some. And I want to progress a bit on jumps. Most time although, I ll be riding down on groomers, hoping to increase the amount spent in backcountry. In total I spent maybe 10-12 days on the mountain in the last two years, no very long.

    Yesterday I was able to test the Standard for the first time. And it is great. The base is amazing (I had a really old burton Cruzer 159W and only some old rental boards before). The snap is great – it surprised me at first, as I was not used to it, but now I know I want even more of it in the future. And most outstanding for me was the general stability when keeping it flat. It made riding lot more easy and comfortable, in combination with that base it gets you easily through annoying parts of riding (humping around in the flat areas in resorts). Where I ride there is a lot of ice and hard snow, this worked fine, although I expected better. I paired it with cartels 2018 and burton concorde boots. Seems a good fit to me. Also it works pretty well with the 13 boots (aprox. 33cm), the boot is hanging over aprox. 1 inch on both sides at 18, -15 angles, so I would say it is really pushing it, but for me it was fine.

    So thanks for the input, I decided for it mainly based on this discussion and review. It was a great buy and for me it was not very easy to find smth. in this weight range, for this boot size and with a nice graphic and good shape (bcs. I love the shape of it). And I think it might work really fine even for beginners after several days (not many).

    Best regards

    Reply

  58. Hi, Nate
    Thank you for reviews)
    I’m looking for a fun all-mountain, twin tip board, medium stiff and wondering your opinion about the board and mostly the right size for me.
    I‘m an intermediate rider, ~150 lbs (without gear), 6,04 (184 cm) and my boot size is US 11,5 (about 32 cm in the sole).
    My binding angles +15/-15, sometimes trying and learning to ride switch.
    Prefer riding pistes on resorts with some jumps and spin and fun, also love pow when it comes.
    I’m choosing between Yes Standard 2019 and Yes Greats 2019. Or if you think there is more suitable board for me also let me know…)
    There is no Yes! resellers in my country, so it’s very hard to choose and ask for advice here about this boards. So need help, and looking forward to your opinion)
    PS: sorry for mistakes)

    Reply

    • Hi Max

      Thanks for your message.

      In my opinion, both boards would suit you well, from your describing. Though I would be leaning towards the Standard for you. Just because it’s better in powder and also it’s a little stiffer, in my books, and you mention you wanted something medium-stiff. YES rate both as 7/10 in terms of flex, but from the feel I got the Standard was more like 6/10 and the Greats more like 5/10.

      Size-wise, I think the 156 would be a good size for you, width and length wise. At your weight you could also go 153 for Standard and 154 for Greats, but at your height and boot size, I think the 156 for both would be better overall.

      Hope this helps with your decision

      Reply

      • Hi, Nate
        Thanks for reply!
        And what do you think about last year Greats’18? Would it be suitable for me in size 156, in fact that it’s narrower than 2019 model and my boots are US 11,5?

        Reply

        • Hi Max

          I really liked the 2018 model Greats (but liked the 2019 Model even more) – but, IMO, there wouldn’t an appropriate size width-wise for the 2018 model for 11.5s.

          Reply

  59. 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

    Reply

    • 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 advanced rider, and as a beginner something around 159 to 161 would be a better bet. But as Intermediate rider, you could move that bar up to more like 160 to 162. Obviously not an exact science, but I think the 162 would be the better length. Often for this board, since it’s wider at the inserts I encourage sizing down, but for your boot size, I don’t think it’s necessary. If you really want the 159, then you could try that, and it would be an easier size to ride if you are more on the beginner side, but if you do just know that there’s some risk there width-wise.

      Hope this helps

      Reply

  60. 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.

    Reply

    • 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!

      Reply

  61. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  62. 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)

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  63. 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.

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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.

        Reply

        • 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.

          Reply

  64. 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!

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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.

        Reply

        • 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!

          Reply

  65. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

        Reply

  66. 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 😉

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  67. 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 !

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  68. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  69. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  70. 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

    Reply

    • 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.

      Reply

      • 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!

        Reply

        • 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!

          Reply

  71. 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?

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  72. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  73. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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?

        Reply

        • 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.

          Reply

          • 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.

  74. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  75. 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!

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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?

        Reply

        • 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

          Reply

  76. 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?

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  77. 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.

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

        Reply

        • 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!

          Reply

  78. 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.

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  79. 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.

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

          • 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.

    • 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

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Recent Comments

Follow us!

Twitter_logo_white 32 x 32
facebook icon 40 x 40
g+ 40 x 40
Pinterest 40 x 40

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

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