When I look at the YES Standard and the Standard Uninc, I think, there's not too much difference between these two boards on paper, apart from the camber profile. But when you get them out on snow, there's definitely more to it than just camber.
The Standard is the epitome of do-anything-anywhere-anytime and that might be all you need to know (but.... still keep reading for more details :-)).
In this review, I will take a look at the Standard as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Standard a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: YES Standard
Price: $579
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 91.6/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Of the 32 current model all-mountain snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Standard ranked 2nd out of 32
Overview of the Standard’ Specs
Check out the tables for the Standard’s specs and available sizes.
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN
PRICE:
$579 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID CAMBER
HYBRID Camber - YES's "Camrock" 3-4-3 (rocker-camber-rocker).
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
Sintered
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
5.5mm
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
149 | 245 | 120-160 | 54-73 |
151 | 248 | 120-180 | 54-82 |
153 | 253 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
156 | 258 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
159 | 263 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
162 | 268 | 180-220+ | 82-100+ |
167 | 266 | 180-220+ | 82-100+ |
Who is the Standard Most Suited To?
The Standard is best suited to someone who wants the ultimate, IMO, do-it-all board. For those who have a very eclectic style but want to have a one-board quiver, this is the best that I've found to serve that purpose - so long as you're at least an intermediate rider.
Not quite beginner easy to ride, but still nice and easy ride, yet still isn't bad at speed or for carving, despite that.
Standard DetailS
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Standard is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Standard 2025, 156cm (258mm waist width)
Date: February 13, 2024
Powder
Felt good in what I could find, but never found enough to get a sustained feeling. But from past experience on this board and based on specs, it performs pretty well in powder. It's never going to be a powder destroyer, but it's also not going to destroy you in powder!
There is some pretty healthy rocker in the tip and tail and while the nose isn't longer than the tail, it does have more surface area - not because of a wider contact point, but through it's shaping. It's subtle but it does help a little.
There is also no setback, but if you take advantage of the slam back inserts, it should go pretty well in powder.
Carving
It's not a world beater when it comes to carving, but still pretty decent. And can carve at relatively high speeds without feeling too washy.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: For a board that manages to be as decent as it as for carving, it is surprisingly easy to turn/slash. It really takes very little effort, making it really versatile whether you want to ride it slower/more casually or get a little faster/more aggressive on it.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, for a board that handle a decent amount of speed, it's one of the more agile boards at slow speed.
Catchiness: If I really felt for it, I could detect a very subtle feel like it could catch the tail in some situations, but it's really minimal.
Speed
It's decently stable at speed. It has its limits, but I felt pretty comfortable driving it at reasonably fast speeds, without it feeling too wobbly.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Did a good job. Not immune to getting bucked around and not super damp but also not super chattery. And when it did get bucked around, making line adjustments was nice and easy.
Trees/Bumps: Felt so confident with this in tight spaces and felt decent in the little powder patches I had in the trees too.
Jumps
Sick for jumps! Not super poppy in terms of total pop, but otherwise is just that perfect in between of being easy to pop and ollie and the perfect balance between stability and maneuverability.
Pop: As eluded to above, it has nice and easy to access pop. There's more there when you wind it up, but not epic total pop.
Approach: The perfect balance of being stable enough to pick your line and go for it and stable enough for larger jumps, but also nice and easy to maneuver or speed check without throwing you out of whack and aborting.
Landing: Again, strikes that nice middle-ground of being forgiving of off landings, the ability to maneuver and speed check when needed after landing, but also being solid enough to stomp the landing on most size jumps.
Side-hits: So much fun! That easy pop and maneuverability help - and you can send it on bigger side-hits too.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Everything really, depending on your skill level and risk level.
Switch
Transitions to/from switch are smooth and easy and feels basically the same riding in both directions.
Spins
So good. Great balance of being easy to setup, not over spinning (ok maybe a touch) but easy to finish an incomplete spin on the snow. Easy access pop and decent enough total pop.
Jibbing
Not my ideal jibbing board but still really good. I was confident to do the limited things I can do on boxes/rails on it.
Butters
For how the board performs everywhere else, you'd think there'd be something that it doesn't do that well. Is that thing butters? Nope, it butters really nicely. It's pretty easy to flex the tip and tail and you can lock it in without threat of over-flexing (unless maybe you're riding a size too small for you).
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| Factor | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Powder | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 4 | 8/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Crud | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Trees | 4 | 8/10 |
| Switch | 4 | 8/10 |
| Jumps | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 4/5 |
| Butters | 4 | 4/5 |
| Rails | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 91.6/100 |
The Standard really is The Standard for do-it-all, in my opinion and experience.
There's nothing that doesn't feel fun on this board and there's nothing that it struggles with. It's really good in icy conditions, hard and soft groomers, uneven terrain, and even decent in powder. And you can ride it any way you want. And has that indescribable x-factor that I just can't put my finger on.
Every time I get on this board, I expect that it won't wow me quite the same as it did the previous time I rode it. But so far it's never failed to get me excited and it's always succeeded in making me reluctant to unstrap from it.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
To learn more about the Standard, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below:
To check out some other all-mountain snowboard options, or to see how the Standard compares to others, check out our top rated all-mountain snowboards by clicking the button below.
Hey I’m not sure if I mentioned it in the last post because I thought comments were just for the board I was looking at.
I’m 5’9” 175-180 lbs at times. 11.5 boots.
Like riding groomers, trees, powder, and side hits.
Trying to decide betweeen 159 or 156 on the yes standard. It looks like weight wise I’m good for either. What would you recommend.
Appreciate the reviews. Seems like you are very knowledgeable and dialed in.
Hi Brad, just saw your follow ups now after replying to your original message.
You could still go 159, but with the new information, the 156 becomes more doable. It’s a tougher call. I would say this – if you value stability at speed and/or powder float over maneuverability at slower speeds and ease of butters, ollies, spins etc, then go 159. If visa versa, then I’d go 156.
Hope this comes in time before your trip. If not, hope you have/had a great trip.
Hey Nate,
Ignore my last message. I got my numbers mixed up.
I am 5’9” 175-180 lbs (fluctuates some) and size 12 boots. I mostly like riding groomers and trees/powder when I can. I rarely go in the park but like to hit the jump line on rare occasions. My current board is a 158 Rome Agent.
Weight wise I can fit either board. I think the width at inserts would be fine for my size boots, but wondering with the board being wider if I would enjoy the ride more going down to 156 or should I go up to the 159. I’m pretty open to either but want this board to be a great fit and last a long time. I’m looking to buy pretty quick for an upcoming trip. Please let me know your thoughts.
Hi Nate,
Your review of the yes standard makes me want to come back to snowboard after a 10 year skiing parenthesis !
I have two questions:
1. Which size should I take ?
I’ve an opportunity for a 156 at a unbeatable price but I probably should get the 153.
(70kg, 178cm, US9.5-10)
2. Are there any significant differences between current and last model ?
(For information my last snowboard was a Nidecker addict camrock (157cm, waist 253mm). And I was intermediate to expert. But it was 10 years ago…)
Cheers
Hi Vince, thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would be leaning 153 in your case. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong, but would likely feel on the bigger side and feel different to how I felt it – likely to feel more stable at speed, float better in powder and better for high speed long carves, but offset by worse maneuverability, as well as more difficult for butters, ollies, etc. IMO, for your specs, the 153 would be the more optimal size and the decrease in manueverability for the 156 would be felt more than the decrease in stability/powder float in the 153 vs 156.
Some changes to the ’26 model, but nothing significant.
Hope this helps
Nate
I’ve been looking at the yes standard and your review definitely helped make the decision. My question is why you went with the 156? I am the same weight as you, 180lbs. It seems you and I are at the very top of the limits for weight on that size. Would that not have any effect on aggressive carving?
I am needing a wider board for my size 12 feet. My current board is a Rome agent 158 and I get some toe drag if I get really aggressive. I was thinking 159 would be best for me based off of being in the middle of the weight and having a bigger waist. I typically ride groomers and like to find powder and trees occasionally, but not often.
What size would you recommend for me? Would I have a better experience sizing down despite being close to being overweight?
Hi Brad, thanks for your message.
The limitations of weight recommendations is that it doesn’t take everything into account (riding style, boot size etc). I typically wouldn’t ride a 156 as my all-mountain board, but this board is wide for my 9.5/10 foot size, so sizing down is to compensate for that extra width. With 12s, the need to size down isn’t there, and if aggressive carving is something that you’ll be doing a lot, then that’s another reason not to size down. In your case, the 159 is likely the better bet, mostly due to foot size.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your content.
I’m interested by Yes Standard 159 or 162.
I’m 1m85, 82kg, Burton Photon 11.5
I saw it’s a large board and the waist widht for 159 is 163mm and 168mm for 162.
I ride principally on groomer, trees and pow, I like easy jumps lile 180/360.
I’d tend to go with 162. Will it be hard to turn or will I loose in flexibility ?
Is the 159 unstable at hight speed, carving for my size / weight ?
Last one, do you have any recommandation for bindings ?
Thank you
Hi Charles, thanks for your message.
In the case of the YES Standard, I would go 159. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161, but I’d err down a little rather than up for this board. The 263mm waist and 268mm waist translate to 277mm and 282mm underfoot, assuming a roughly 21.5″ (545mm) stance width – and I imagine yours would be wider than that and the wider the stance, the wider it will be at the inserts.
While going up in size will always improve powder float and stability at speed, in this case I think the balance of that with maneuverability makes the 159 the better size in this case, unless you’re really bombing at breakneck speeds (in which case there might be a better board for you or you might need to consider a two board quiver).
Just as further reference, I’ve talked with guys guys oof a similar height and a little heavier who have gone with the 162 and found it felt a little big for them and they wished they’d gone 159 for this board.
tldr; while the 162 is probably closer to what I would consider your typical size, in the case of the Standard, I would be erring to the 159.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I tried a post earlier, not 100% sure if it went through, but first off thanks for the amazing resource here, really helps pick stuff out, especially for those of us not near the snow or a decent shop – and props too to all the posters – really helps seeing everyone’s decision making process on here.
45 yo Irish guy, riding (sporadically) for 20 years +, did a couple of seasons a while back, but now it’s just a few long weekend / week trips to the Alps each winter.
I’m 6foot, 85 kg – size 12 (US) Nike Vapen boots.
Have been riding a 2013 157 TRice Pro since that year – jumped onto that from a 159 Custom and have to say I really enjoyed (and still do) the slightly ball bearing feel of the C2 rocker underfoot, love the little bit of easy nose lift in powder, and generally much more enjoyed the shorter board feel of the 157 and being able to chuck it around a little more than the more straight line feel of the Custom, and I love the grip of the magnatraction. The TRP at that length for me is definitely a touch squirrley at top top speed, but I’ve learned to hold on and ride it out so I think on balance it works well for me.
I would say I’m a competent intermediate rider, generally spend my time hooning around resort enjoying long cruisers and side hits, the odd very poorly executed spin attempt, and if lucky enough to time the trip – some relatively piste / resort adjacent powder runs. If there is powder to be had, then that definitely is the focus. The odd park lap, but just to blast off a kicker or two, no mad trickery.
I do like the Trice – but also keen to try something different and I think the Standard pretty caters for all that I manage to do for the few short weeks on snow each year.
So my question is around :
a) Sizing – 156 vrs 159
b) a lack of surfy or too stiff a feel
Do you think, despite the big boots, I would go ok on the 156?
As far as I can see it has the same waist width as my current 157 TRP (258) and I haven’t really had much trouble with toe or heel drag on the TRP..
I wonder if the 159, with the width and increased surface area of the Standard, would go back to that Custom-esque feeling of a more straight line board, and not as fun a ride as the 156/7 length boards.
Thanks so much.
Emmet
Hey Emmet, thanks for your message.
Got both messages – just a little behind in moderating them!
From what you’re describing, I think the 156 would work for you. Typically I’d say 159, but given how you describe your riding and experience to date, I think it should work well. In terms of waist width, you shouldn’t have any issues, IMO, if you haven’t had any with your 157 T Rice Pro. They have the same waist, but the 156 Standard will be wider at the inserts, so you’ll actually be getting more leeway width-wise.
I don’t think you’ll find it too stiff or lack of a surfy feel in the 156. I find it an easy turning board in the 156 (similar height/weight to you, but with 9.5 to 10 boots) – easy to slash out. It’s got a fairly mellow easy going feel, in my experience and with bigger feet than me, that’s likely to be even more so the case for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate. I am 187cm, 83kg, with US11.5 boots. Mostly riding in resorts, mostly groomers and would appreciate better stability at higher speeds. What Yes Standard size would you recommend to me, please?
Hi Phil, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161. I would still size down a bit for this board, even with 11.5 boots, so I think the 159 would be your best bet. But the 162 is in range, if you wanted to err bigger.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate Dawggg,
Reading through a lot of this thread I got a lot of awesome info and it sounds like the YES Standard is what I am looking for but I am between that and the YES Greats.
I am an intermediate-expert rider at 6 foot, ~150lbs and a side hit FEIN. Also love ripping nimble tree lines and dipping into the park for a rail or 2 but def not a park rat, I have been riding a Solomon Villian that needed to be retired like 3 seasons ago so I am very used to a noodly board now but want to step in the opposite direction from that for many obvious reasons.
I was initially looking at the Goliath/Goliath+ as I have always wanted to try a Bataleon but read that it doesn’t handle well for icier/east coast conditions where I am based out of now. (CO Born so will still be doing a good amount of Rocky Mtn riding.) That brought me to the YES Standard as I am looking for a one-board quiver with a playful/ aggressive balance, a lotta pop, and something I can still butter around a bit. I do ride switch a decent amount so my brain is wondering if the directional vs asym twin is better/worse there.
Seems the biggest difference overall between the standard/greats is the pow performance based on my reading but hoping to gain any more insight on which you’d think better suits me. Also open to any and all other suggestions (been side eyeing Proto T3) but I am on the clock for getting something before the snow starts really falling.
Appreciate it hella boss.
Hey Shane, thanks for your message. That was my nickname in high school!
Yeah, I would say the Greats better for carving, and a little better for jumps and switch, in my experience, with the Standard having it over the Greats for powder. For that reason, the Standard is a little more versatile and if you’re going to be riding powder relatively often, that’s more than a few inches deep and going to have one board, then I’d go Standard.
The Greats is better for switch, IMO, but the Standard is really pretty good. It’s not a super directional board or anything – it’s actually pretty close to being a twin, with just the shape/volume of the nose being more than its tail, but otherwise twin-ish, if you ride it centered.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision – if you have any other questions, shoot ’em over.
Hi Nate,
First of all a massive thanks for the super helpful reviews that save us so much time and money. It is much appreciated.
I turned 40 and it’s time to retire my 2017 Yes Typo 158. I’m 195lbs, 6’1 and in decent shape. I wear 9.5 size boots.
I am high-intermediate/early-advanced, riding all the mountain, based in the French Alps, going for a trip to SLC in March.
I have been focusing more more to progress my ground tricks and jump rotations off side hits and small/medium kickers in the park. I like riding off piste as much as possible (when the snow is not too hard). Bombing less and less due to age, trying to add more playfulness in my riding. When there is a pow day, I want to be able to enjoy it without destroying my back leg and when it’s hard/icy get a confident grip on the steep tracks. I enjoy laying a carve but lately I am more in the jumping/rotating/playful side of things.
My old 158 Typo is decent in most of the above except the powder. I am not afraid to go shorter for more playfulness but I am concerned about the floating off piste and in powder.
From all my research and especially from your kind responses to others like me (you’re the best) I think the 2026 Standard 156 is the way to go (and not the 159 as the typical all-mountain sizing would suggest). I just wanted to make sure that I didn’t miss anything before pulling the trigger.
Thinking of upgrading my 2010(!!) cartels with some Union Force (not Stratas because I want to use the setbacks).
Does all this sound right to you? Any red flags I may have missed?
Many thanks for taking the time to read all this.
Cheers,
James
Hey James, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161, but given you’ve been riding the Typo in 158 and if you’ve typically ridden around that 159 length and given the style you’re looking at, I think the 156 is still appropriate in this case. As you say, bigger means easier powder float, so you do sacrifice that by sizing down for more playfulness, but in this case, I think you’re still going to see a noticeable improvement vs the 158 Typo.
a. because you’re still getting more surface area in the 156 Standard vs the 158 Typo and b. because the Standard is a little better than the Typo for powder even in a comparison with equal surface area – and then a little better again, once you take advantage of the slamback inserts. Of course, not going to get the float of a more specialized powder board, but given how you want to ride and to do it all in one board, the Standard in 156 is a good bet, IMO and will give you enough of an improvement over the Typo, that you’ll notice it, based on my experience with the boards and the specs.
For reference, as YES used to publish surface area (but haven’t done so the last couple of years, unfortunately)
YES Standard 156 42.2dm²
YES Typo 158 41.5dm²
To put that in perspective, some other sizes below:
Standard 159 43.8dm²
Typo 161 42.5 dm²
Typo 156W 41.9dm²
Typo 159W 42.9dm²
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the reply, you are truly the best. I didn’t know that the surface area of the Standard 156 was bigger than the Typo 158, super helpful info there. I agree that this plus the slambacks should provide enough float for the occasional powder day while allowing me to progress on the more playful stuff.
I went on and got last year’s Standard 156 at a decent discount and a pair of last year’s Forces at half-price (hard to say no to that).
I’ll make sure to get back to you with my thoughts on this set up compared to the old one, it’s the least I can do to say thanks for all the super work you’ve been doing here.
Have fun this winter man! Ride safe
Hey James, glad to hear you got your new setup at a good price. Hope it goes well for you and looking forward to hear how you get on.
Hey Nate,
I believe I commented on another post the other day, and now I can’t find it, so I am sorry to have to do this twice.
I have been riding for about 15 years, where the last 10 years or so I have been on an old Salomon Pulse made in 2008. I am long overdue for an upgrade! But I’d like to purchase a great all-mountain, do-it-all all sort of board. I have been looking at so many different boards, and I am just so lost on which direction to head and which one to pull the trigger on. I mostly enjoy ripping down a mountain on groomed runs, but I also enjoy a chill, lazy ride at times, so something maybe at least with a little bit of forgiveness. I do like to go into the back country and carve between some trees and into the powder now and again. I like an aggressive but playful board, one that can rip, but also hit some little jumps and butter on. One with good edge hold, with some pop, but more of the ability to smoothly ride through any and every condition. I have been looking at so many different boards. Capita Super DOA, Mercury, Mega Mercury, Lib Tech dPr and TRice Pro, Never Summer Proto Type 3 and the Ultra version, Bataleon Goliath +, Arbor Rain, and of course, the Yes. Standard & XTRM. There are just a few I have been looking at. 🙂
I stand 5’11, range roughly 158-164 lbs, and have a size 10.5 shoe. So I am thinking I would be in that 156-157 board range mostly?? And I planned on pairing the board with either a medium-sized Union Force, Strata, or Ultra!
Thank you again, and this time I will keep track of where I commented. Looking forward to some of your help and guidance!
Danny
Hey Danny, thanks for your message and apologies for the late reply (been working hard trying to get ’26 reviews out and some video edits done).
Not sure what happened to the other message. The filter can sometimes be a bit over-zealous!
Hard to go wrong with the Standard, IMO. It’s the kind of board that strikes a really nice balance between everything. The Mercury is another good choice, just leaning a little more to the slightly more aggressive side, but still something you can be playful on. The Mega Merc a little more aggressive again, so that might not quite have the playful/aggressive balance you might want. The Super DOA not great for powder, IMO. The T Rice Pro also down from the Standard and Mercury’s in terms of powder, but a little better than the Super DOA, IMO. That could work, but I’d still be leaning Standard or Mercury out of those. The Proto Type 3 also not as good for powder, IMO.
The dPr could work, but a little mor on the playful side and I would be concerned it wouldn’t respond how you’d want when wanting to ride more aggressively. The Goliath+ is something that you can a little more aggressive on than the dPr but still has a loose-ish feel to it, which not everyone likes. But I found I could be relatively aggressive with it and still be playful with it too.
The Standard XTRM is on the more aggressive side, more like the Mega Merc. I’d be concerned you wouldn’t be able to be as playful/casual with it as you’d like.
tldr; I’d be looking most closely at the Standard, Mercury and Goliath+. If you did want to look at something with a hybrid rocker setup (like the T Rice Pro), then something like the GNU Riders Choice or GNU Upgrade could work too. Size-wise, I agree that around that 156/157 range would be a good bet.
Hope this helps with your decision and let me know if you want any specific sizing opinions on any of the boards.
Thanks Nate for your thoughtful reply!
I think this years yes standard is the direction I want to go, definitely leaning that way.
At my size, 160lb 5’11 10.5 boot, I was thinking the 156. My boot should still be ok for a 153 if I wanted a little more freestyle riding? Still worry it might feel too small coming from a 160 Salomon Pulse?
I haven’t been able to find an older Mercury model in the size I want (I don’t like the new color graphic of this years model, tennis ball green isn’t it, IMO). Looking for a 155 or a 157 in the Mercury.
However, I did find a 2024 mega Mercury model (graphic I like better than the 2025) in a 157 for $600.
I feel like with your help, I’ve narrowed it down to these 2/3 boards. With this years yes standard costing around $550, you think it’s worth getting or spend the extra $50 for the mega and it’s technical advancements?
Wondering if there will be any sales closer to the holidays..
I imagine this would be a board I’ll have for many years, and I’ll be riding in Tahoe, Northstar, Heavenly, and Kirkwood!
Can’t wait to get riding!
Thanks Nate!
Danny
Hey Danny.
Yeah, I think you’d be good width-wise on the 153, but I think the 156 would be your better size anyway, so that’s the way I’d go.
Note that the Mega Merc is not just more technically advanced and lighter, it’s also stiffer (in my experience). If that’s something you want, then that’s fine, but just wanted to point that out. It’s not heaps stiffer but enough to be noticeable. Capita rate the Merc and Mega Merc the same, but they base their flex ratings on the core flex and don’t take into account the glassing/resin, so while they rate the Mega Merc/Merc, Mega Death/BSOD and Super DOA/DOA, the same, the Megas and Supers are always stiffer, in my experience. Again, if you like the sound of that, then all good, but just wanted to point it out.
Black Friday there are typically good sales. Typically just on last year’s stock and there’s a little bit of a weigh up. If you wait till Black Friday and there’s a past season model you want that’s in the size you want, then you’re likely to get it for the cheaper price. But availability of past season’s boards will be more right now and as they sell off between now and then, there’s less availability – so there’s pros and cons for waiting until the likes of Black Friday.
Just as I say that, about Capita’s board flex, I go to their website and they’ve changed this year and rated the Mega Merc 7 and Merc 6.5, the Super DOA 6 and DOA 5.5. Mega Death/BSOD still both at 6.5. So maybe they are now taking the glassing/resin differences into account?
Hello!
I am 5’9” 150lbs. Boot size 10.
I’ve rode a Burton Kilroy camber 152 for 5 years and love the smaller board as I am an aggressive rider. Would classify myself as a higher intermediate rider. Love to go fast, hit side jumps and tree runs. I am looking for a new board and want something more “all mountain” as my Burton was not good at all out west in down deeper snow.
I believe I want a bigger board max would probably be 156?
I have narrowed it down to a few boards below
Bataleon Goliath/goliath +
Capita Mercury
Burton custom camber
And I came across your YES standard review and I guess it is also a consideration of mine.
Thank you in andvance.
Hi Alex, thanks for your message.
Given you’re looking for a good step up in powder performance, maybe not the Custom Camber. While I do think it’s better for powder (2.5/5 powder rating from us) than the Kilroy camber was (2/5 powder rating from us), it’s not that big a step up, IMO. The Goliath/Goliath+ (3/5 powder rating from us) are a bit more of a step up from the Custom Camber, and then the Mercury and Standard another step up again (3.5/5 powder rating from us).
The Mercury is the best at handling a more aggressive rider, IMO, but the Standard and Goliath+ can handle more aggressive riding too and are a little more maneuverable for quick/sharp turns (i.e. in the trees). Given you’re a more aggressive rider, I would be erring Goliath+ over Goliath in this case, as it’s a little more stable.
tldr; I’d be leaning Goliath+ or Standard with the Mercury a close second.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
I mostly ride in Japan and I have a dedicated powder board. I was looking for a 2nd all-mountain board to play around when it’s not super deep, doing a bit of everything: carving, switch riding, side hits, park and still a decent amount of powder as it’s Japan.
Can this board handle powder well when it’s not too deep WITHOUT using the slam back inserts?
Thank you so much for the wealth of information you provide.
Best,
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy, thanks for your message.
Yeah, for sure, in my experience – even when not in the slam backs it’s decent enough for shallower powder, IMO. And if you have your dedicated pow board for when its deep, then I think the Standard would work well for what you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Heyo! I’m 5′-11″ 175 lbs and 10.5 boot. Home mountain is Alyeska AK. I’ve got a 154 Yes Greats that is so close to being my daily driver. But resort days often include some steep laps on beat up pow and it gets bucked a little easy. Also landing jumps in 10″+ snow without going OTB can be a challenge. Would a 156 Standard be better at that stuff? I’ve got a 153 Yes Hybrid that I bring out the 1-2 DEEP days and Japan trips. But I’d like more tail for powder jumps and drops
Hey Bill, thanks for your message.
Yeah, the 156 Standard would certainly help there, IMO. For a couple of reasons – a. it’s got more surface area in the nose and b. just being that bit longer/bigger overall, giving it more overall surface area c. a little more rocker in the nose.
Hi Nate,
love your reviews! Maybe you can help me pick the right board (maybe even size). My Hotlist:
#YES Standard
K2 Passport
Amplid Singular
Capita Mercury
I’m 5′ 10″, 155lbs. Shoes are 8-8.5 (US) 260 MP.
I am still an Intermediate trying to get to learn proper carving (can do some on blues) . I can go down any slopes and only get some problems if conditions get bad (afternoons on steep slopes with ice plates and moguls)
I’m coming from a 2009 Nitro Team. Starting here I’m looking for a board
– that has a somewhat better maneuvarability (flatland spins, playing around on blue slopes)
– can do a little better in powder (although I am 90% piste and no backcountry, but I love to run off piste from time to time)
– does not sacrifice edge hold for skidded turns as well as fpr carving (important for my confidence level!)
– does not have to be an the best carve board but still good to learn a good carving technique
– switch is a plus, but neglectable
I’m not doing any parks but I’d love to work on my style while playing around on piste (spins, switch, maybe some butters in the future)
I hope you can point me in the right direction! Thanks alot in advance!
Hi Chris, thanks for your message.
Based on your description, I’d be leaning YES Standard. The Passport and Mercury would certainly work too (we haven’t tested the Amplid, so not sure there), but I think the Standard has the best balance of the capabilities you’re looking for.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 156, based on your height weight, ability level and style you want to ride, but for the Standard, I would size down to the 153, given your boot size vs the Standards width.
Hope this helps with your decision
Just ordered it.
Thanks mate!
Hey Chris. Nice one! Hope it treats you as well as its always treated me and hope you have an awesome season!
Hi mate,
I am very similar in size and also in between the Mercury, Standard and Nitro Team. How do you like the Standard so far?
Also Nate if you are reading this: Is there a reason yourated the Standard Intermediate-Advanced and the Mercury Intermediate-Expert?
Regards,
Ralph
Hi Ralph. Main reason is that it’s a little stiffer of a board and a little more of a technical ride, IMO. Still Intermediate doable, but not as easy riding as the Standard, in my experience.
Loved this review on the Standard. I am a high intermediate rider, 5’7 1/2. 175lb. My boot size is a 9. What size in the board would you recommend? Looking for this to be my do everything board and still fun and playful on groomer days. I would normally go with a 156. I am also looking into the 2026 version of the board.
Hi Kody, thanks for your message.
I would go 153 for the Standard. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 156/157, which it sounds like you typically ride, but would size down a bit for the Standard with 9s, because of the width.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, Absolutely love that you take the time to reply. Legend.
My predicament like everyone else. Choosing a size and I was leaning towards the 162 due to fear of my boot size and my size.
Im 183cm, 210lb, US12 boot. I’ve been riding for 20 years on and off. I love speed, natural sides hits and just carving up the mountain. No park, no jumps but keen for this board to handle powder so I was swaying towards the 162.
Im coming off a machete GT 158W so the jump to 162 seems a bit daunting but also logical. I want the 159 to work but I’m worried that I could regret not having then bigger board in the long run.
I own a pair of Strata bindings but I was keen to switch up to the Force. Open to a second recommendation.
What’s your thoughts?
Cheers.
Hi Marc, thanks for your message.
Width-wise, you’d be fine on the 159, IMO. However you would get better powder float, naturally, on the bigger 162. For your height/weight specs, I would put your typical “all-mountain” length at around 162, so I think you can go there comfortably. The Standard in the 168, even with 12s, will still be on the wider side, so I would say you’re still looking at going a little bigger overall than a typical 162 in respect of surface area. The Standard does have a lower than normal effective edge to overall length ratio, so that should help to counteract the fact that it has a larger surface area (of course that surface area is good for powder), given it’s not super wide for you. For those of use with smaller feet, I still feel this is a board better sized down a bit from your typical size, but for you, I’d say the effective edge factor and width factor kind of cancel each other out, given it’s not super wide for you or anything.
However, if you do go to 162, note that it will likely feel bigger than your current board. Even if you’re 158W Machete GT is wider at the waist, it’s unlikely to be as wide at the inserts as the 159, let alone the 162. It will likely have more effective edge, but the 162 will still very likely feel bigger. The 159 would likely feel a similar size on harder snow, but with more surface area and slightly more powder oriented features, it should still be a noticeable improvement for powder vs the Machete GT 158W. But the 162 would of course give you that greater difference – and I wouldn’t say its too big for you or anything. But just wanted to note that it would take some adjustment, I would say.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply. I went for the 162 in the end and initially I questioned my choice but after the adjustment period I am having a blast with it and I have no regrets on the size.
I actually got fitted into some Burton ION boots and got fitted into size 11 after the board purchase. I did question if I should have went the 159 now that I’ve downsized boots but as I said before I love the 162.
My final question would be with bindings. I currently have the Stratas but I am considering something a little stiffer. I’ve toyed with the idea of Atlas or Cartel X – any input from your end as to what would pair nicely with the board? Thanks again for your time and input.
Hey Marc, thanks for the update and glad you’re getting on with the 162.
I would personally pair the Standard with something with a 6/10 to 7/10 flex. Given you want to go a bit stiffer than the Strata, the Atlas or Cartel X (which I rate at a flex feel of 7/10 for each) would both work well, IMO. Between them the main differences are, I would say, that the Atlas is more adjustable, so that can help to get a more ideal fit to your boots and board – and the Cartel X has better shock absorption and a little more comfortable overall. Not a bad choice between them, IMO, for the Standard, but hopefully that can give you a bit more to go off in choosing between them.
Hi, Thanks in part to your advice I previously bought a 2021 Jones Frontier 162 which has been good to me but there have been times that it’s felt too aggressive.
In my mind’s eye I want to have more fun on the piste, finding side hits, riding switch, little ollies, butters, going in the side trees etc as I improve. I like cruising, carving, long runs, I do like to pick up some speed and I’ve found the Frontier to be great for that aspect, whereas previous rentals I’ve used were too chattery.
I live in southern England so have to accept I’ll probably not get much more than a week a season, usually in Spring hence my opportunities to improve are lacking and I wonder sometimes if the Frontier is holding me back, and I want to make the most of the precious days I do get to spend.
At the time I was also considering this board, the Yes Standard. Based on the review it fits the bill as a one board quiver, ok in the spring ice/corn mix here in Europe. It also can be ridden shorter so might help me feel more nimble at slower speeds and in the trees (in future) than on the Frontier. In your opinion would it make a more mellow replacement for the Frontier and what size would you put me on?
Stats: Height 6’2″ /188cm, Weight 87-92kg typically, US 11 Burton Imperials.
I have Nitro Team bindings with a minidisc so won’t be able to make use of the slamback unless I change (not out of the question, in future).
Thanks again!
Hi David, thanks for your message.
The Standard isn’t likely to feel significantly more mellow than the Frontier, in my experience, but I would say it’s a touch mellower, vs the 2021 model Frontier. Should feel around the same in terms of chatter though, and with a bit more of a snappy feel to it. In general a little better for some of the things you mention like side hits, riding switch, ollies, butters. Size-wise, I think the 159 would be your best bet, as an all-round size – and I’d say 159 Standard would be a little more nimble than the Frontier 162, but again, in my experience it’s not likely to feel world’s apart in that department – but a little improvement.
The 156 wouldn’t be out of the question and would certainly exaggerate how mellow and nimble it would feel vs the Frontier – but going to the 156 would be detrimental to how stable it felt at speed and for its float in powder, and given you also like to ride fast, the 159 feels like the better all-round size for you, to me.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate, huge fan of the reviews and website.
Just ordered the Yes Standard 159 off the back of your reviews.
Looking for a new binding to pair, I am looking at the Union falcor or possibly the union force.
I mainly enjoy riding fast and carving on groomers and side hits. Never really done park or jibbing but would like to learn. I am intermediate rider 182cm 90kg size 11.5us thirty two lashed from many years ago. Fairly athletic, would the falcor be OK or too stiff? Also what size would you recommend?
Many thanks from the UK, Will
Hi Will, thanks for your message.
I think the Falcor would be a good match for you and it matches well with the Standard. I would be looking at a 5/10 to 8/10 flex range for the Standard and more ideally 6/10 to 7/10. Given your riding style and specs, I think the flex of the Falcor (which I felt at a 7/10) would be just right. And given they have really good board feel, I don’t think you’d find them too stiff for side hits or jibbing either. The Force would work too, for sure, but in this case, I think the Falcor are the better match.
Hope this helps with your decision
Massive thanks, that helps a lot
Your very welcome Will. Hope your new setup works well for you.
Hello! Your review is very good. But can you give me some advice? I should be in the advanced beginner level now, I think. I am a little hesitant between YES Typo and YES Standard. Also, what length of snowboard should I choose? My height is 175CM/5’8″ 62KG/134 lbs 9US. Thank you!
Hi Yang, thanks for your message.
As a high-end beginner, I would go Typo. It’s a really good board for progressing on if you’re high-end beginner/low intermediate, IMO. The Standard is probably just that little bit too much of a step for a high-end beginner, IMO. It might be OK, but the Typo is the safer bet, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 152 and that’s the size I would go with for the Typo for you. If you were to go Standard, I would size it down to the 149, if I was you.
Hope this helps with your decision
I had to come back and say a massive thank you for your review! Your review is what convinced me to buy the Yes Standard as my first ever snowboard and I can’t be happier with this decision. If you reading this and are umming and ahhhing like I was, take the plunge.
After hunting the internet for videos/reviews it was your review that convinced me to commit to the Yes Standard and what a board. It did everything that I asked of it and it was only my limitations that held the board back.
Without doubt this is the best board I have ridden, other boards I’ve ridden, in order of liking: T Rice Pro, DOA, Bataleon Thunderstorm.
My review in different conditions on the same Japanese trip. I’m 189cm 105kg (230lbs) style: mostly carving, board was 162cm Yes Standard with Burton Cartel X bindings (12 and -6) and Burton Ruler size 13US boots. I rode it set back, but not in the slam back position.
On fast groomers: was brilliant, held the edge very well, smooth transitions during turns, carved nicely and the edge never felt like it would catch unexpectedly. Tail never washed out, it stuck in there through everything I did. The board felt playful and I’m sure it would have been good in switch and tricks past my basic switch.
On groomers in 6-12 inches of powder: it was brilliant. Carves and slashing was sick. It rode through transitions of variable conditions like it was nothing and confidence was high because it felt locked in and there was no unexpected, unusual behavior.
Knee deep POW: this really took me by surprise. I wasn’t in the full slam back position and the board floated with minimal extra pressure on the back foot. To test the depth of the POW I had to push down on my front foot to sink the nose. I can imagine the full slam backs would be perfect and the board would be effortless.
If you were worried about how this board would operate in POW, don’t be.
Backcountry: this is where I was the limitation. It was fine in the deep stuff and my technique was probably the limiting factor here amongst the trees and drops.
If you made it this far, if you have this board at the top of your quiver killer and you are an intermediate rider then I say do it, Sorry for raving on but I love my Yes standard 162cm. Cant wait for my next trip to the snow.
Thanks for your feedback and insights. Much appreciated and glad you’re loving your Standard!
Hi Nate!
Thank you again for all the information here! I commented on the Bataleon Goliath board with a similar question, but I found a nice deal on the Yes Standard 156 and was wondering if it would be good for me.
I am 1.83 m, 83kg, and I am using a Salomon Launch BOA 10.5US (mondo 28.5). It seems that it could be either the 156 or 159.
Hi Thomas, thanks for your message and your comments on the Goliath review (I have responded to that now as well).
While I recommended the 159 on the Goliath, I would go 156 for this board. It’s a good bit wider – and wider at the inserts than it looks. The 159 with the combination of its length and wiidth is likely to feel on the big side, IMO and from what others with similar specs have said about the 159. I have similar specs to you (183cm, 81kg, US9.5-10) and I’ve always really liked the 156 and never found it to feel too small for me.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! It did help.
Yes, my boot is a bit bulky, and I am actually 11 (my left foot measures 290mm), but the Launch Boa 285 (10.5) fits better. I understand that 156 would give me more mobility and 159 more stability, especially if I speed up. I am leaning toward the 159.
I missed the deal on the 156 but found a 159 test model with a few scratches for a great price. I trust the store, and they will give it a review and wax.
It’s my first board, and I don’t know much about how much ‘damage’ it can support and if a test board has lowered life, even if used for only one season.
Hi Thomas
A season’s worth of testing shouldn’t impact its life much. And unless there has been like a fairly strong impact (e.g. with a tree), then there should be nothing that would lower its life in any significant way. A few scratches won’t hurt it. I would only be concerned if there were core shots in the base or any cracks anywhere. Otherwise, you should be good. It’s possible there could be hidden damage, but snowboards are typically pretty tough, and it’s very unlikely in my experience that there’d be any damage if you can’t visually see it.
I have just got it, and it looks and feels great with the Bataleon Blast binding (I got one from last year with the same color profiling from the board). Size wise it feels good as well (I got the 159, and with the new Dialogue boots, the width also looks great), I will try on in some weeks.
Thanks for your help!
You’re very welcome Thomas. Glad to hear the gear is looking good. Hope it treats you well when you get it out on snow!
Hi Nate, thank you for your wonderful review!
I am 5’11 / 140 pounds / Size 9.5 boot and was wondering what size I should get!
I am currently deciding between the 151cm and 153cm but it seems like a close call
Thank you so much!
Hi Ryan, thanks for your message.
I would go 151 if I was you. While I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 154, I would size down a bit with this board, because of its width. With 9.5s it’s not overly wide for you in the 153, but it’s still wider than optimal in that length, IMO. The 151 is still on the wide side, but the length size-down should put it right in that sweet spot overall.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I wanted to say thank you for your reviews, they really helped narrow down all my choices. I posted a comment on another page but I had the wrong info so ignore if you see it. I was planning on getting the “Yes standard” in either a 151 or a 153 and was unsure what would be best. My stats
Weight:150lbs +-5lbs. Probably hit 160lbs eventually as I’m getting older.
Height: 5″7″ or 170cm
Boot size: 8Us/8.5 Us (mendo 26).
I would say I’m a high intermediate to advanced rider, and it’s going to be my one board quiver.
Any info would be great, and thanks again for all your reviews!
Hi Charlie, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 154, but with your boot size and this board the 151 is the better bet, IMO. You could go 153, but I think it would be bigger than optimal as a one-board-quiver. I think sizing down a bit more to the 151 is the way to go in this case.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late – been pretty hectic testing gear the last couple of weeks!)
Hi Nate, I’m looking to finally get a new board after almost 20 years. I currently have a Burton Clash 158. I would say I am in the intermediate to advanced range. I primarily ride on groomed trails on the east coast, with some glades mixed in, but don’t really ride switch or do any terrain park. For the most part, I just like going fast down groomers. I’ve been looking at the Yes Standard, Jones Mountain Twin, and Jones Aviator, but curious if you think there might be a better option for me to consider? I’m 6’5″, 205 lbs, with a size 12 foot FYI. Thanks!
Hi Ryan, thanks for your message.
All 3 of those would work for sure. I’d be leaning Standard or Mountain Twin, mostly because they’re easier to manage in trees, in my experience. The Standard a little better in icy conditions, which I hear you have to contend with a lot out East, so there’s that to consider, but the Mountain Twin is still really good in icy conditions as well, so that’s not a deal breaker. Some other options to consider (GNU Banked Country and YES PYL come to mind if you wanted to go a touch stiffer and more directional) but the Standard and MT would fit what you’re describing well, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 163/164. So I’d be looking 162 for Standard, 162W for MT.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate, I’m wondering what union binding you would recommend to pair with the yes standard.
I’m 5’9, 145lbs, size 10 boot and I’m on the lower side of an advanced rider. I really enjoy doing it all, I do park, carving, trees, side hits..you name it.
Thanks!
Hi Mitchell, thanks for your message
For your specs, how you ride and matching the Standard, I would be leaning Strata or Force. I’d probably go Strata if I was you, personally, as I prefer the board feel for side-hits/park.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late – been pretty hectic testing gear the last couple of weeks!)
Hi Nate, great feedback, really helpful. I am looking to the Yes Standard. But not sure about the sizing, 159 or 162. Riding style, slopes, switch, butters and speed. And powder if available:). I am an advanced rider with 30 years experience. Lenght 6’2, weight 185 lbs and shoe size US12.
Hi Jules
I would be leaning towards the 159 for you. While I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161 and with size 12 boots there’s no big need to size down for width, but because of your weight I’d still err a little shorter rather than longer. The 162 wouldn’t be wrong, but I think the 159 is the better bet.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
First off thanks for all you do here. Amazing site and reviews!
I recently rode the Mercury (160W) and I really liked it. Before I rode a DOA and I prefer the Mercury for sure. That said with my specs (1.86CM/93KG/12US boots) I am worried that the Mercury is a bit too small overall. It felt a bit slow to move around at slower speeds and powder float was less than expected and not that much better than the DOA. Wondering how the Standard compares here? I def. don’t want to go softer so maybe I have to go Uninc? I assume size wise I could make the 159 work but maybe the 162 is a better choice. Just worried it might be a bit too wide and therefore slow to turn gain. I am def. between those 3 boards right now, but no chance to test a Standard anywhere.
Thanks for your help.
Best,
Michael
Hi Michael, thanks for your message.
Yeah, if you don’t want to go softer than the Mercury, then I would be leaning Standard Uninc. Not as good in powder, is the only thing that you might hesitate on with the Uninc. But otherwise it’s a more similar flex to the Mercury (a touch stiffer I would say, but not by too much).
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 162/163, so 160/159 is on the smaller side for you IMO, but given you didn’t like the maneuverability of the 160W, you may not want to go bigger.
Width-wise, the 159 Standard Uninc is overall a touch wider than the Merc 160W, even though the Merc is 2mm wider at the waist. The Standard 159 is going to be around 278mm at the inserts with the Mercury more like 274mm (assuming a stance width of around 22″ (560mm). They’re pretty similar tip/tail (310mm Standard vs 309mm Merc) but overall I’d say the Standard is a touch wider – but given the Merc has that little bit of length, I’d say their surface areas would be very similar (which is important for float). The 162 Standard does get quite a bit wider – 268mm at the waist and likely to be around 283mm at the inserts – that’s going to mean a lot more surface area for float, but also reduce maneuverability, as you mention.
159 Standard Uninc vs 160W Merc, I would say the Standard Uninc would turn a little bit faster, but in the 162, I’d say it would be a slower turner. The regular Standard in 159 would be a noticeably faster turner than the 160W Merc, IMO – being torsionally softer flexing helps with that.
A few questions to see if we can narrow down the best size/option a bit more accurately.
– What was it about the 160W Mercury that you found felt too small? Was it mostly float in powder or did it feel unstable at speed for you?
– How deep was the powder you tested in? The reason I ask this is that I don’t tend to notice too much difference in powder float between boards until you get to deeper powder. If it’s shallower than like 6″, then the difference between boards is far less noticeably, in my experience, compared to deeper powder, where the difference becomes more evident.
– Anything else you can tell me about your riding would be helpful. Trees? Jumps? High speed? Deep carving? Any ground tricks (butters, etc) or rails or anything like that.
Hi Nate,
Love the review. I need help deciding between the standard at 153 or mountain twin at 151. Both seem to fit my style. Riding mostly groomers with family, occasional trees and bombing down hills occasionally. I have a 156 old sims board and looking for something more fun and less stiff.
I’m 5’8″ and 162lbs.
Thanks!
Hi Jorge, thanks for your message.
Both would definitely work well for what you’re looking for, IMO and might be that size is the tie breaker in this case. If you could also let me know your foot size or boot size, that would be great. I like to take that into account for a better size recommendation.
Hey Nate,
I have found your reviews to be very informative. I am an upper level/advanced rider, and I’m looking for my first board. I’ve always rented in the past. I ride east coast and west coast, so pretty much any conditions you could imagine. I like to ride slow, ollie, do ground spins, hit natural jumps, ride in and out of tress, ride fast at times, and pretty much anything on the mountain other than park. I knew I wanted a do everything board and based off your reviews have been set on the YES Standard for about a year now. I am 6′ and 200 lbs. with a 10.5 in boots. (I wear an 11 in most tennis shoes.) I have been leaning towards the 159 and just wanted confirmation before purchasing. Also, do you have a suggestion on a binding/boot combination for me. I’ve been looking at the YES Airmasters, but your low rating on board feel is the one thing holding me up, since I like to do a lot of ollies/small jumps. I also like to have high responsiveness at slow speeds, so I’m kind of torn. Should I be looking at another binding like the Burton Cartel or Genesis?
Hi Brad, thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161, but with 10.5s, I would size down to the 159, rather than go up to the 162, because of the Standard’s width. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong either, but it would be more playful and freestyle friendly and less stable than how I experienced it. For do-everything I think the 159 is the most optimal size for you.
For bindings, flex-wise I would pair the Standard with something either 6/10 or 7/10. The Airmaster falls into that category, but yeah, as you say, not the best board feel (IMO). Not horrible or anything either, but not great by my feel. The Cartel and Genesis would both work – good matches to the Standard and good board feel. Others around that 6/10 flex that have good board feel and would match the Standard include:
– Union Strata
– Bataleon Blaster Asym
If you wanted to go to something a little stiffer, I would check out this list.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
This is my 4th season riding and i would like to step up from my Nitro prime (158)
I am 178cm tall and I weigh cca 85 kgs.
As you listed Yes standard and Jones MT as no 1. and no. 2. I would like to get one of those.
I was thinking to get Yes standard (156) but i would really like to hear your opinion.
Keep up the great work you’ve been doing !
Hi Adam, thanks for your message
Both the Standard and MT would be great choices, IMO, both a good step up from the Prime, without being a step too far.
Some things to consider, as mentioned in the previous reply:
– I would say the Standard is just a touch more playful than the MT but it’s pretty close. Both are a good balance between playful and aggressive.
– The Standard has a small advantage in powder, IMO, just because of the extra distance you can set back on a powder day with the slam back inserts. If you didn’t think you’d bother moving your bindings on a pow day, then it negates that advantage, but it’s there if you want it.
– Standard slightly better in icy conditions, in my experience, but the MT is good in icy conditions too.
– MT a little more stable in crud, in my experience, but again it’s a subtle difference.
Also if you’re doing any freestyle stuff, I slightly prefer the Standard for jumps and rails – again a subtle difference though.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 159. However with these boards it will depend on your boot size. For the Standard, if you have anything that’s 10.5 or below boot size, then I would go 156, same for Mountain Twin for 157. If you have boot size 12 or above, then I would go 159 Standard and 159W Mountain Twin. If your boot size is in between (i.e. 11 to 11.5), let me know and we can take a closer look.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I need yours advice.
I am 87kg/190lbs and 175cm/5.7 9US.
I am looking for one board quiver.
I don’t go to the park and mostly ride on slopes but if there is some fresh snow I would go off piste. I also like to play a bit on the side of the slope.
I am not sure which board will be better for me – yes standard 156/159 or jones MT 157/160.
Hi Roey, thanks for your message.
Both the Standard and MT are 2 of the best one-board-quiver boards out there, IMO, so you can’t go wrong with either. Some things that might help with decision.
– I would say the Standard is just a touch more playful than the MT but it’s pretty close. Both are a good balance between playful and aggressive.
– The Standard has a small advantage in powder, IMO, just because of the extra distance you can set back on a powder day with the slam back inserts. If you didn’t think you’d bother moving your bindings on a pow day, then it negates that advantage, but it’s there if you want it.
– Standard slightly better in icy conditions, in my experience, but the MT is good in icy conditions too.
– MT a little more stable in crud, in my experience, but again it’s a subtle difference.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 159, but I would err shorter with these boards with US9 boots, as they are both a little wider than the typical regular width boards, particularly the Standard. So I’d go 156 for the Standard if I was you and 157 for the MT.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much for your detailed and helpful response! I really appreciate you taking the time to provide such comprehensive insights on the Standard and MT boards. The size recommendations are very helpful. Thanks again for your expertise and guidance!
You’re very welcome Roey. Hope you have a great season!
Hi..have been boarding for 30 years I would say I’m top half of advanced and been daily driving a k2 slayblade since 2010..it’s a stiffy🤣! I’m 5ft 11 size 10 uk boots weighing 184 lbs. I’m getting old and although I still like to gun it now and again I also like to butter and hit 180’s but no park other than some small to medium kickers and side hits..I’m thinking of one to take me to retirement now and am torn between uninc and standard..if you see my post on the uninc chat and you get to that first then ignore this! Not sure..I think I will miss the stability and dampness that I’m used to getting the standard…what do you think? Great reviews btw 👍🏻
Hi Steve, thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Uninc for you, just because I think it will feel more like what you’re used to and provide you with more stability. The Standard could work, but it might be a little bit too much of a contrast. I never got on the slayblade but I’ve heard it’s quite stiff. The Standard Uninc would almost certainly give you more forgiveness than the Slayblade but with less of a drastic change. IMO, you would also gain more forgiveness from the BSOD (again hard to say how much for sure, having not ridden the Slayblade, but from I’ve heard others say, I’d say you would. Not quite to the same extent as the Standard Uninc, but close. The Standard, IMO, is certainly easier going overall and easier for butters, pop (easier to get it to pop but not as much total pop as Standard Uninc), and spins, but a step down for speed and carving.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Many thanks for your response..with all that said would you go for the 159 or would I sneak into the 156 category..just thinking of the butters on the uninc and whether that would assist being close to the top weight range making it a bit more pliable!! I think I’ve dropped the bsod idea although it’s a sick looking board!! Again many thanks ..you’re doing a great job with these reviews.ps I have also thrown the karia Otto into the mix but that’s a different story.👍🏻
Hi Steve
I would say you could get away with the 156 Uninc – and yeah would make it easier to butter for sure. Just keep in mind that it will come at the sacrifice of a little stability. We have quite similar specs (I’m 6’0″, 180lbs, 9.5 boots), but it’s mostly the boot size that makes the 159 more suitable for you than it would be for me. I would say you’d find the 156 just a little less stable than I found it, but in terms of butters would likely feel the same/very similar.
Hi Mate,
Excellent review! I’ve been enjoying your reviews for gear many years, and this is my first time to post a comment as I’m also looking at this board. I have few questions and hope to get some comments from you
My height: 166cm
My weight: 63kg
Boot size: US 7.5, 255cm
Previously ride:
2024 Jones Stratos 153cm (24.8cm wide)
2024 Season Forma 144cm (25.5cm wide)
1. Should I choose 149 or 151cm for this board if I’m looking at something all mountain but with slightly more on practicing ground tricks (180/360, Nose Tail roll / buttering etc)
2. Which board would you prefer? Ride Shadowban or Yes Standard for the above purpose?
3. Does this board or the shadownban would be a touch softer and better for ground tricks?
Much appreciated your responses!
Ken
Hi Ken, thanks for your message.
1. For size, I would go 149 for you for the Standard, particularly given that your leaning a little toward the ground tricks side of do-it-all.
2. I would personally go Standard. The Shadowban would work and is really versatile, but I would personally prefer to work on ground tricks with the Standard. A disclaimer to that is that I’ve only tested the Shadowban in pretty direly slushy conditions, so I can’t make a super accurate comparison for other conditions.
3. I found them to be both a really simiilar overall flex, but the Shadowban to have more of a consistent flex through the middle and at tip and tail, whereas the Standard is a little softer tip and tail and a little stiffer through the middle. And the Shadowban I found to be a touch stiffer torsionally. The softer tip and tail, I find, makes it easier for things like butters and the slightly softer torsional flex can make spins easier, in my experience. But again, with the disclaimer of the conditions I got with the Shadowban and to emphasize that the difference in flex in all area are pretty subtle between the two, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi..great review..I’m currently riding a k2 slayblade 2010 as a daily driver..it’s very stiff and a bullet if you have ever ridden one d as though angry says it’s soft compared to a bsod!! Other reviewers don’t..anyway i looking to mellow out duee to my age..I want something I can still charge now and again but as Leo something fun to carve and 180 butters etc..so I narrowed it down to bsod ,standard or standard uninc!! What are your thoughts..I could go stranda decender or flagship or united shapes cadet..would love your thoughts if you have ridden these. Advanced rider . Kind Regards
Hi Nate, thanks a lot for your reviews, it really helps understand so many things and do a selection that will help grow our riding.
I am a rider going to intermediate level and the last years i have been riding a Nitro Prime of 158 and now want to challenge my game and grow.
My height is 183 cm and weight 80 kg.
I wear 10.5 US size boots.
I am seriously considering buying the 2025 standard and pairing it with the Burton Cartel bindings.
Would you say that a combination of 156 Standard with medium or large Cartel or a YES Airmaster Medium or large would be better?
Thanks and wishing you a great new year.
Hi Alex, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – things are really hectic right now!)
I think the Standard would be a good step up from your prime, without being too much of a stretch. And I agree on sizing it to a 156 with your specs. Pairing it with the Cartel would, IMO, give you better butterability and board feel overall. If you think you’d be doing a good bit of freestyle stuff on it, I’d be leaning that way. The Airmaster will give you a better carving experience (in my experience) without sacrificing anything for slow speed turns. Also has better shock absorption (though the Cartel is pretty good, just that YES/Jones bindings take shock absorption to another level).
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late)
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all the awesome content! I have been studying your reviews a lot by now. I am looking for a new one board quiver: I am an all mountain rider who always prefers powder. But given its of course scarce, I also ride a lot groomers (both on hard morning conditions and slushy spring days). I also like to jump around here and there but spend less time in the park season after season. Currently ride an old Gnu Carbon Credit which I like in powder but has very little control on hard snow (it is also very old by now). I have on my shortlist the Yes Standard (159), Yes PYL (160W) and Capita Mercury (159). I am a bit above 70kg, 10.5 boot size. Any thoughts which one would most suitable for?
Hi Ralf, thanks for your message.
Could also let me know your height. While weight and foot size are more important than height for sizing, IMO, I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor.
Hi Nate, I am 6.0 / 183 cm. In the meantime, I also considerably added the Yes Standard in 156 to the short list. Alongside the 159.
Looking forward to hear your view!
Hi Ralf
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 157/158, so I would be leaning 156 if you went Standard. Of the boards you listed originally, I would probably go Mercury 159 – just as it’s a better size for your specs, IMO, vs the Standard 159. The PYL gives you the best powder performance, but I prefer the sizing of the Standard 156 or Mercury 159 (or 157) for you.
Thanks a million! You have any other board in my mind, which could be even better fit?
My level is that I am very good and controlled rider in any terrain at any snow (20y of riding). But dont manage to go out more than 7 days per season and wont throw huge jumps in the park or anything like that
Hi Ralf
I think something like the Standard would work well – it should give you a little improved powder performance over the Carbon Credit and noticeably better in hard/icy conditions and in terms of stability, carving etc.
If you wanted to go more directional and more powder focused, at the expense of some freestyle attributes, you could look at something like the Jones Hovercraft 156 or Flagship 156W or Capita BSOD 159. Not quite as good in icy conditions as Standard and you’d be going up another jump in terms of stiffness. Not sure if you were wanting to keep things more medium flex? But some options to consider. For more mid-flex, more directional options, you could look at the Capita Navigator 158 (though a little down in terms of icy edge-hold), Burton Deep Thinker 157, Never Summer Swift 158.
I do like the PYL for you or something like the GNU Banked Country – I just feel like the 160W sizes are a little big overall and the 159s are borderline width-wise with 10.5s. Otherwise, I’d consider those as well.
Lots of options you could consider, but the Standard is a great choice for do-it-all and for hard snow and I think it would work well for what you’re looking for. But those are some options in case you wanted to get a bigger improvement for powder, but it sounds like you’re more looking for improvement in hard snow.
Hey Nate, I’m really deliberating between the Standard and Standard Uninc, but primarily due to board vs. boot size vs. weight. I’m ~135 lbs (+-5) with a size 9 boot. I’m thinking the 149 or 151 (which the Uninc doesn’t come in) would be the most appropriate for me in terms of weight, but I’m a little unsure of how boot overhang will pan out on the 149. Would appreciate any thoughts!
Hi Austin, thanks for your message.
Assuming a stance width of 545mm (21.5″) you’d be looking at an insert width of around 259mm. If you’re closer to the stance width of the reference stance width of the 149 (which is 495mm | 19.5″) then you’re looking at around 257mm at the inserts. Either of which I would be comfortable with with 9s. The 245mm waist width makes it sound narrower than it is. At the inserts (which is what matters for boot drag), you should be fine, unless you have super bulky boots, a 0-3 degree back binding angle and love to eurocarve. Then maybe not. But in most scenarios I think you’ll be fine.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I just picked up a Standard in 151 and I’m starting to wonder if it will be too big for me. I am 155 5’5 with a size 8. Should I size down?
Hi Andy, thanks for your message.
It’s a close call. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 154, but would definitely size down for this board with size 8 boots. It’s wide at the inserts for you, IMO, but sizing down that 3cm, it’s probably going to be fine. It’s certainly a weigh up between the 149 and 151, IMO. I think I’d be slightly leaning towards the 149, but I wouldn’t consider the 151 to be the wrong size for you either. Subtly, I think you’ll probably find the 151 just a touch stiffer, more stable, less agile than how I found the 156. But it’s not something that you should feel is noticeably massive or anything, IMO. If it was easy to make the change to the 149, then you could, but the 151 will work, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Hi, thanks for your help. This is the best resource for snowboarders.
I’m a beginner, and I’ve only had one season. My height is 180 cm, weight 92, foot size is US 10.5.
I bought Deeluxe team ID boots, union force classic M mounts.
Now I’m choosing a board, I want to buy YES STANDART 25 (159), but I’m afraid if it will be too wide for my foot size.
My riding style is mostly on prepared slopes. Soon I will fly to the mountains and try freeride. So I need a universal and multifunctional board. May I ask you to give me an advise and your suggestion for purchase?
Hi Oleg, thanks for your message.
The 159 Standard will be wide for your boots (or more to the point your foot size). That can still be OK, so long as the board is shorter than what would typically be a good length for you. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161, so going to the 159 would be sizing down slightly, but as a newer rider, I feel like you might find it a little too big. It’s close. I think you’d find it ok for when you’re riding faster and in powder, but for learning, particularly on groomed runs and in tight spaces, like trees, you may find it an effort to manage.
Some other options to consider, taking into account your level and the need for an all-rounder, would be the:
– Rome Warden 158
– Bataleon Goliath or Goliath+ 159
– Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 160
– Slash Brainstorm 160
Hope this helps with your decision
Dear Nate,
Good day.
Thank you for the so full and a very professional review. I will learn more about every of boards you recomended.
I like YES TYPO. What do you think about it? Can I consider it as well? If yes wht size I should buy? Maybe 159W will be ok for me in my case?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Oleg
The YES Typo definitely an option too. I didn’t mention it, as it’s not as good in powder as the others mentioned, but if you’re not too worried about powder performance, then it could work for sure – it’s one of the best options, IMO for a high end beginner, transitioning into intermediate riding. Size-wise, you could probably go up to the 161 for this, but you could go 158 too. But it would be bordering on too small and potentially too narrow – especially if you’re going to be carving deeper. You could consider the 159W with this one. Because it’s a narrower board, the wider sizes are narrower than typical wides. While the waist width is only 2mm narrower than the Standard 159, it’s quite a bit narrower at the inserts and narrower nose and tail too. And being a more mellow board than the Standard it’s easier to handle as well. So 159W in this case vs 159 with the Standard would be a very doable size, IMO.
Dear Nate,
Good day.
This is me again.
Thank you for all advises from your side. That have changed all my opinion about what board I need to myself.
Now I can buy with a good discount the following one – Yes TYPO 163w. Do I understand correctly that it will not be to much wide for me (it suites me with my weight much better – 92 kg nett:)).
Hi Oleg
Not to say that it would be so wrong for you that it would be unrideably too big, but the combo of width and length and it’s a little bigger than ideal, IMO. I would go 159W or 161 before the 163W.
Hi Nate!
Thank you very much for writing this amazing review. I really appreciate how you’ve put together this site, it helped me a lot in narrowing down my options.
My current ride is an on old 2009 burton custom 156 and have finally decided to retire it. For my next board, I’m looking for a one quiver board that can do it all in a more playful way. I ride 2/5 groomers, 2/5 pow and 1/5 freestyle (side-hits, butters, small/med jumps, switch). I’ve narrowed my list down to the yes standard and lib tech terrain wrecker plus even the nitro santoku but it might be too soft.
Yes standard: seems more stable for carving, better in powder, as you said has an x-factor, but may be too stiff and not nimble/quick edge to edge
TW: seems more playful and nimble, but not sure about the hookyness of mtx, the extruded base and rocker in between foot coming from a full camber board
For context, I’m 5,11”, 170 pounds and have boot size 9 to 9.5 and am at the higher end of intermediate.
I’m leaning toward the YES Standard 153—shorter than my current all-mountain length. My thinking is that the smaller size might make it feel more playful and nimble, mitigating concerns about stiffness and easiness for buttering.
What are your thoughts on this size and my reasoning? Do you think it aligns with what I’m looking for, or would you recommend a different board or approach?
Henri
Hi Henri, thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think you’re on the right track with them, and yeah, I’d say the Standard is a little stiffer, a little less playful and not quite as nimble but they’re certainly not worlds different in those aspects. Particularly in terms of nimbleness. I find the Standard pretty close in terms of edge-to-edge speed.
The Standard is a little more similar to the Custom vs the Terrain Wrecker, so the TW would be a little bit more to get used to, coming from the Custom, but I’d say you’d adapt pretty quickly. But the Standard would be less of a transition – but is still a more playful, more easy going option vs the Custom, in my experience.
Going shorter would mellow out the Standard – and you’re probably going to feel a similar flex/playfulness from the 153 Standard as the 157 TW, for example. The downside is less surface area for powder, so not as good as the TW 157 in powder, IMO. The 153 wouldn’t be wrong for you though, it’s a wider board and one you could size down on – and as you say gives you some more playfulness. I would still be leaning 156 for the Standard for you, as an all-round size, but the 153 certainly still in range and could work well, if you didn’t mind it being harder work in powder. Since it sounds like you spend around 40% of your time in powder, though, you may want the easier float of the longer size.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply!
That makes sense for sure. I get the feeling that you think the Standard overall fits my objective more than the TW or Santoku, that helps.
So for the Standard, my worry with the 156cm is that the width is 25.8cm. My boot size is only 9 to 9.5, plus it’s 1.1cm wider than my current board, so wouldn’t it be too sluggish/much work to turn?
And after re-examining, I ride closer to 1/3 in each groomer, pow and freestyle. If I were to go for the 153, would a slightly stiffer bindings compensate the float in powder? And what’s your experience with using the slam back inserts? Cheers
I’ve decided to go with the 153 and have that extra playfulness. I think the float in powder will be enough for me with this width, extra rocker and taper.
Was curious what bindings you think work best. I’m torn between the Union Strata, Force, Ultra or Burton Cartel. Do you think any of these stand out for that playful all mountain type of riding?
Hi Henri
I would be leaning Strata, Force or Cartel of those. The Ultra would work for sure, but it’s not as good a flex-match, IMO (just a little on the too-soft flexing side). Given that it sounds like you have a fair bit of freestyle in your repertoire, I like the Strata for you. It’s a good flex-match, IMO and should suit your riding style well. The downside of the Strata, however, is that you wouldn’t be able to use the slam back inserts as the mini disc isn’t wide enough to span the 4cm between the slam back inserts and the main insert pack. I think the Cartel would be your next best bet. The Force would be a good option too though – I’ve just found the Cartel to be a touch better for freestyle stuff vs the Force. But either would definitely work. Note also that the Ultra, if you were going to go with them also have the same mini-disc as the Strata.
I haven’t used the slam back inserts on the Standard personally, but in general setting back further in powder helps, in my experience.
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your insightful reply! I’m leaning toward the mini-disc option, as I think it’ll enhance board feel, and should still be able to set them back enough for powder. The Stratas sound incredible, but I noticed your updated top 10 all-mountain bindings and got intrigued by the Bataleon Blaster Asym you ranked at #3. Would this be a good option for my setup? Or do you think the stiffer and more stable Astro Asym might make more sense since I went with a shorter board?
I really appreciate your time and advice and made sure to support your page as a small way to say thanks!
Hi Henri, I think the Blaster Asym would work well with your setup. And the fact you went smaller, means it will be a little softer feeling, so the Blaster Asym is a better match than it would be if you went longer, IMO (it won’t need as much stiffness to drive it as if you were to go with the longer option). The Astro Asym would likely work too. We’ve only tested the Fullwrap version of the Astro, so not completely sure of how much softer they feel vs the Fullwrap, but in our experience the Asymwrap equivalent of a fullwrap is usually noticeably softer. We felt the Fullwrap Astro at 8.5/10, but I don’t think the Asymwrap would feel more than 7/10. I think I’d be leaning Blaster-Asym in this case, but again, having not tested the Astro Asym, that’s a bit of a guestimate.
And thanks so much for the contribution! Highly appreciated.
Hey Nate!
Just wanted to swing back in and say thanks again for your help. You recommended the Standard for me and I’ve already fallen in love with it after one day on the slopes! It’s a fantastic board and you were right on the money with your review. Cheers!
Hi John, great to hear from you again. And awesome to hear you’re loving the Standard. Hope you have a great rest of your season!
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the great review!
I am at an intermediate level, currently using a ‘Ride Machete / Size 155’ board. While I really enjoy the speeds it has to offer,
I don’t feel in good control when at slower speeds or in-between trees, and it often feels catchy.
Not sure how much of it is just my level and how far another board could support me here.
Weight 75kg. Height 180cm.
I am thinking to get the following:
YES Standard 2025 / Size 156
Photon Step On / US 8.5 or 9
Step On Genesis EST Bindings – Size M
Do you think that could work well together or would you recommend another board?
Boots – An 8 was recommended to me as the ideal size for my feet after measuring in a shop,
but I never had a day on the mountain that didn’t end with a lot of pain in my feet (even months after the initial break in phase).
This was with Photon Boa boots, without Step On functionality.
Should I go a half or full size up for the new boots?
Bindings – Genesis EST or Re:Flex?
Cheers
Hi Eric, thanks for your message.
In my experience with both the Standard and Machete, I have found the Standard to feel noticeably less catchy. Technique certainly plays a part, but the board can make a big difference in terms of that as well. As part of testing boards, I always purposefully try to feel for that catchiness and see how a board feels when skidding or slashing turns – and the Standard has always felt very catch/minimal to me.
Size-wise for boots, I seldom find that anyone is right on their mondopoint. It is sometimes the case, but I could never get into a Burton 9.5 – and that’s the size that I should “technically” be in. The 10 is the Burton that fits me best – and I’ve tested a lot of them. I mean, sure after 25-30 days riding in them the 9.5 would probably come good and be a really good fit. But life is too short to spend 25 days on the mountain in discomfort, IMO. And the 1/2 size up has never felt like it’s packed out so much as to make the boot feel too sloppy or anything, so I would look at the 8.5 in your case. No guarantees of course, as everyone’s feet are different. Even at the same length, fit can feel different – but based on my experience and what others have also said, I would say the 8.5 would be the mostly likely to be the best fit for you, overall over the life of the boots. It can definitely depend on the brand and on your particular feet, so if you can try on first, that’s the best bet. If not, you could order two sizes and return the one you don’t want (making sure the store you buy from has a good return policy).
Size-wise for the board, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 158, but with your boot size, I would size down for any board. The Standard in particular is wider than typical and really is more like a wide board, in terms of the width at inserts and the contact points. That said, the narrower waist vs wide boards does help to make it not feel as wide. So I think the 156 would definitely work, but I would also consider the 153 for this board. Typically I would say 155-156 would be your best range, but for this board, I would definitely consider the 153. If you want to ride more trees and do some freestyle stuff and feel like you’ll be riding slower to moderate speeds more so than higher speeds, then I’d be leaning 153. If you do want to ride fast a lot of the time, then I’d be leaning 156 – and if you’re going to be riding powder a fair bit, the 156 would give you better float there too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello, Nate! You are doing a lot of useful things for snowboarding enthusiasts. Please tell me which size of the snowboard Yes standard is better for me to choose. My height is 186 cm, weight 72 kg, shoe size 44EU. I’m leaning towards 156, but am I too light for him? Thank you very much. Anton.
Hi Anton, thanks for your message.
I think the 156 is just right for you. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” closer to 159, but with this board, for you, I would size it down a bit. But with your boot size, I don’t think you need to size it down to the 153. I think the 156 would be your best bet and should be a size that works really well for you for this board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for all the data, it has helped me tremendously!
This will be my third season riding and I feel that I’ve quickly outgrown my beginner board, so I was hoping I could get your thoughts on the best fit for me as far as moving towards something more Intermediate.
I think I have it narrowed down between the Yes Standard and Jones Mountain Twin. I’m primarily an east coast rider and most of my day is spent carving groomed blues with some blacks mixed in, but I also like getting playful occasionally with some sidehits/through trees etc. Almost no park so far but I would like to explore that side in the future mainly centering on jumps.
Also what size should I be looking at?
5’8″, 160lbs, size 9 boots
Current board is a 152 but I’ve never ridden anything else so I’m not sure if that’s correct for me.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hi John, thanks for your message.
Firstly, size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155/156. But as a beginner the 152 was a good size for you, IMO. But as you’ve progressed out of the beginner phase, it would be a good idea to get closer to that 155/156 length, IMO.
From what you’re describing, my instinct is the YES Standard, just because it’s a touch more playful than the Mountain Twin and a touch better in icy conditions. But you can’t make a bad choice between them for your next step, IMO.
Specific sizing for those two boards, I would look at the 153 for the Standard. While this isn’t really going much longer than your 152, the 153 Standard is really more the equivalent of a 155ish. The Mountain Twin, I would look at the 154. The 157 is in range, but I with your boots being 9s, I would still err south of 155/156 rather than north of it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Not sure I agree w u on this one Nate. I thought this board was just too springy and just got bucked around for days. I wanted to like it tho.
Hey Tony. Thanks for your input and insights. Much appreciated to get another perspective on it.
Hi Nate,
I was waiting for the 2025 review and I am glad it’s there!
I am 6ft1 (1m86), 170lbs (75kg) and have 44,5EU boots but they are adidas Response 3MC so they have a reduced footprint (similar to a 42,5/43 I think). My bindings are Union Atlas size M.
Which board length would you recommend? I guess this is your favourite do-it-all board?
I had the Standard from 2017 in 158 size so I kinda hope that the 156 size will fit me well and might be even easier to carve?
The 2017 version was probably a little thinner though. I expect a 156 to be easier to carve/turn as it’s more suited to my weight?
Cheers,
Björn
Kind Regards,
Björn
Hi Björn
Yes, I finally got the 2025 review out!
I think the 156 would suit you well. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, but given the width of this board, even with longer feet, I think sizing down to the 156 makes the most sense for you, for this board. And yeah, this is my favorite do-it-all board.
I would say you’ll find it a little easier to carve than the 2017 model, even with the extra width. It’s a remarkably easy turning board, given its width and I don’t think you’d have any troubles carving/turning it with your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate! I’ve noticed you just updated this review. Was it that in previous review of this board flex was 6 or do I remember things incorrectly? (I probably do remember things incorrectly)
Hi Egor.
You remember correctly! I did rate it 6/10 in previous reviews (you can see it’s past reviews at the link at the end of the review). It felt a little softer than what I think of as a 6, this time when I rode it. Not enough to get it to a 5 though. So I settled on 5.5/10.
Hi Nate.
Very much leaning towards getting last year’s model of this board since it is on sale in many places. 6’5”, 200lbs without gear on, and size 11.5 boots. Past boards were are 159w Yes Basic, and a 157w Rome Katana. This will be my fourth season but first season I really didn’t progress all that much. Goals this season are improving jumps/switch and maybe some simple rail tricks all while riding more blacks than I normally do. 80% groomers though most of the time.
Torn between 159 and 162. Someone else recommended 159 but wanted to see what you thought. Worry a bit about the height but don’t think my stance is super wide.
Hi Sanders, thanks for your message.
While I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163, you could definitely do 159 on this board if you wanted to. And I think that’s probably your best bet, given the goals that you have. The 162 wouldn’t be wrong by any means – and if you were looking to work on riding faster and getting into powder as much as possible (and rode somewhere where you go it regualarly), then I’d probably be leaning 162 for you. But given your goals, I would be leaning 159. The Standard 159 is a decent amount wider than the 159W Basic as well – so you’d still be going up a bit in size.
Hope this helps with your decision (if the reply didn’t come too late – my apologies, I’m way behind right now!)
Hey thank you very much Nate, that does help and it was not too late of a reply. I appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Sanders. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate, thanks for everything you’re doing, especially the advice.
I’m 5’10, 205, US 9.5-10. Looking to hop on a Standard or Std Uninc (torn between more playful flex and full camber). Coming from a 2016/17 Rome Double Agent, which is full camber but have also ridden v-rocker etc in the past. If I’m in the park it would only be 50-50s and medium kickers. I would like to get out more in the pow but this will be a quiver of one and I’m only likely to get out a couple of weeks each year so unfortunately pow is lower on the priorities (unless my wife takes me to Japan for my 40th next year…). So basically I’m a childless rad dad who sometimes likes to bomb and sometimes like to butter and pop. Could you throw me some size recommendations for the standards (guessing 159, but wondering about 156 with my boot size…) and arguments for and against std vs uninc? Like I’m thinking maybe the compromise is the uninc at 156…? Too many options and too much procrastinating! Maybe I just hop on a greats…
Hey Ben, thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161, so I’d probably be leaning 159, even with your boot size, but the 156 isn’t out of the equation. But for when you’re bombing the 156 Standard probably isn’t going to give you enough stability. So, if you went Standard, I would go 159 – and that would give you some decent powder float for when you do hit pow or if you get to Japan. The 159 in the Standard Uninc, whilst giving you better powder and bombing performance, is going to be harder to pop and butter etc. Like you eluded to, the Standard Uninc in the 156 could work. Just wouldn’t do great in powder, but should have you covered for everything else. In the 156, the flex should feel a little softer for you than it did for me, so that would mellow it out.
The Greats is certainly an option if, like going with the 156 Standard Uninc, you want to optimize groomers, etc and take your chances with having to work harder in powder. Again, you’re in the channel between 156 and 159, but it’s got a lot more effective edge than the Standard and overall the 156 is more bomby than the Standard 156 – but not quite as bomby as the 156 Standard Uninc.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome advice and I think confirming where I was at iny head. But then I saw a 2025 mercury in person today and now that.is a good looking deck…
Decisions decisions!
A high quality choice to have to make!
Hey Nate,
My father’s birthday is coming up and I want to get a new snowboard for him. He is turning 60 and mainly just wants to cruise the groomers smoothly, no freestyle or freeriding involved. He is 178cm, ~80kg and has a shoesize of EU 40 (7.5 US). We mostly ride in the French Alps, and I would say that he’s an comfortable intermediate rider. I am looking for a snowboard that fits that desciption and was looking at the following boards:
YES Standard
Bataleon thunderstorm
Burton deepthinker
Jones mountain twin
What worried me was the width of the snowboard in combination with his shoesize, especially of the YES standard 156cm which was my top pick.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Do you think YES standard 156 is fine? Or would recommend another board/size?
Really appreciate the help and the work you do here on this website!
Cheers!
Hi Rick, thanks for your message.
Hope my son buys me such a great gift when I/he is older!
The Standard and Mountain Twin are very safe bets, IMO, for how he is riding. The Thunderstorm would certainly work too, but if he’s not used to the 3BT that would take a little bit of adjustment. The Deep Thinker would work, but I’d maybe go a little more mellow. Something like the Gril Master from Burton would be a really good option, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your father’s “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, but as you mentioned, the width of something like the Standard needs to be taken into account for 7.5 boots. Sizing the length down to 156 would certainly help – and if he was in 9s/10s, then that’s probably what I’d do, but with 7.5s, it might not be enough. You could go to the 153, but then you’d be dropping quite a bit of effective edge and with it edge-hold and stability, for his weight. So, I’m not sure there’s a great size for the Standard for him. If you did go Standard I’d probably go 156, but I think the Mountain Twin sizes a little better.
With the Standard 156 you’re looking at around 272mm at the inserts (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width) – which is the width of a lot of wide boards in that length. The Mountain Twin 157 is more like 267mm at the back insert and 266mm at the front insert (again with a 22″ stance), which is still a little wider than the typical regular width board, but because of it’s effective edge, I think he’d be OK going to the 154 in the Mountain Twin. The 154’s effective edge is 118.6cm. The 153 Standard’s EE is 113.8cm, so it’s quite a bit of difference. The 154 Mountain Twin has more EE than the 156 Standard (116.2cm), so while you’d be going down a couple of cms in total length, it’s not something that’s likely to feel any shorter. While the 264mm back insert and 263mm front insert width of the Mountain Twin is still wide for 7.5s, with the significant size-down in length, the overall size should work well, IMO.
I think he’d be fine on the 156 Standard, but I think he’d have a better time on the 154 Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First thank you very much for the information.
I am a tiny and light weight man (167cm/58kg/25.5cm), at intermediate level who is considering YES Hel Yes Snowboard or YES Standard Snowboard as my first board.
They are both 7/10 on YES’s flex scale, but I heard that women snowboard are less stiff, is it the case even the numbers are the same.
I do switch a lot, and my preference is like groomers (most of the time) > powder (sometime) >>> park (rarely). What would be your thoughts please?
Hi Joshua, thanks for your message.
In my experience, they won’t vary significantly in flex if rated the same, by the same brand. But smaller boards of the same flex rating will always feel softer relative to the person riding it. i.e. The YES Standard in the 149 would feel a lot softer for me than riding the 156 did. So, I think a lot of the talk around women’s boards being softer is typically because someone tries one and it’s usually smaller than the men’s board that they’re riding – and usually too small for their weight. There may be some variance, but I suspect the main reason behind the perception of women’s boards being less stiff is that they are typically in smaller sizes.
In any case, both the Standard and Hel YES (tested by our women’s gear testers) didn’t feel as stiff as 7/10. They’re more medium – 6/10 by my feel on the Standard. Long story short, I wouldn’t worry about the Hel Yes feeling too soft in comparison to the Standard, so long as you get it in a suitable size.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 149. The Standard in the 149 would work, but given your boot size, would ideally size down the length of the Standard because of its width. Note that the width at the inserts and tip/tail is a little wider than you’d expect, if you were to just look at the waist width. You could still ride the Standard in the 149 and it wouldn’t be the wrong choice, IMO, but the Hel Yes in the 149 would be the better bet, IMO, because the size is more optimal.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I’m writing to you from Italy. I have already bought a board following your reviews and I have personally verified that all your feedback is perfect. I come from an easy rider 158 w. My boot size is 11.5. I had tried a 157 but it seemed small to me.
I would like to buy a yes standard and I’m sure that from your review I will find this board perfect for my purpose.
I would like advice on choosing my ideal size, my weight is 178.57 pounds and my height is 70.87 inches. I’m honestly undecided between the 156 and the 159.
I don’t particularly like extreme speeds, I stick to around 31.07 mph. I like to butter up and do some little tricks on the track. some fresh snow when I find it.
I use union strata as attacks.
I really appreciate some advice. Thank you
Hi Enzo, thanks for your message.
With 11.5 boots, I’m not surprised you found the 157 Easy Rider too small.
Generally, size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. Given your foot/boot size, I don’t think you’d find the 159 too big or anything, but the 156 is still in range. If you were often riding faster, then I’d probably say 159 for sure. But given the speeds and the fact you like to butter and do little tricks, I would be erring towards the 156. While I think you could still butter the 159, it would be harder work and a little more cumbersome to press with your specs. The 159 would be better in fresh powder, but you’ll mostly notice this when it’s deep powder vs shallower powder. If you don’t get deep powder very often, like more than around 15cm, then I think the 156 will be enough for you in terms of powder.
Hope this helps with your decision
thanks, now I have everything clear
You’re very welcome Enzo.
Hi Nate – Amazing website – really impressed by all of the crazy data you compile here. Thank you!
I am trying to decide on sizing for the Standard. I am between 156 and 159.
I am 6’2″, 180lbs, size 11 Burton Ruler Step On boots. Burton Genesis Step On Bindings.
I want to go 156, and I think, given the width/volume-shifted design, it should be OK, but I want to double-check and see your thoughts on it.
I spend half my time following my kids learning to ski very slowly on Pennsylvania green trails. I spend the other half of my time on blue/black groomed trails in Vermont, without kids, at speeds around 35-45 mph. I don’t go in the park. I do ollies and side hits and find little jumps along the way sometimes.
I’m thinking the 156 will be stable enough at speed for me when I am ‘bombing’ a run. But I also think it will be more maneuverable/better behaved in slow speeds with the kids. Would be interested in your feedback.
Thanks again for an amazing website.
Hey Bob, thanks for your message.
I concur with what you’re saying and I would be leaning 156 for your specs and how you describe your riding. While I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161, I think it makes sense to size this down more than just to the 159. You would definitely be OK with the 159 and if you were looking to optimize it more for speed and/or powder, then I might err that way. But given how you’ll ride it I’d be leaning 156. The 156 has never felt small to me and I would typically ride 157-159 in all-mountain boards (6’0″, 180lbs, 9.5 boots). While you’ve got a little height and foot size on me, it’s your weight that will have the biggest influence on your stability at speed, which would be the biggest question mark with the 156. But I’ve found it pretty stable at speed in the 156 and haven’t had issues in that speed range. Naturally, the 159 would be more stable at those speeds, but the 156 can handle those speeds, in my experience.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate – looking for a one-board quiver and have the Yes Standard and Jones Frontier in my top spots. All mountain, a few park laps for small-med jumps (no jibbing), carving groomers, some higher speeds, pow if we get lucky, switch now and then. Ride CA/UT/MT/WY
5’11” 170lbs 11.5 boots
Looking at 158w Frontier and 159 Standard (maybe 156?)
Would love if you can provide a tie-breaker for me!
Thanks for all the info you put out. Lets see if I can add some from my spreadsheet for quicker comparo:
Board | Size | waist | dm^2 | Tip | Tail | FFw | RFw | EE | Sidecut | setback
Front. 158w 262 4283 305 305 27.45 27.76 1160 7.5 20mm
Stand. 159 263 4380 310 310 27.7 27.7 1188 7.8 0
Stand. 156 258 4220 305 305 27.2 27.2 1163 7.6 0
FFw – front foot width
RFw – rear foot width
If you can tell, I might overanalyze purchases.
Hey MTN
Thanks for your message. I also overanalyze purchases, but it gives you a better chance of getting the right decision, so I don’t think it’s a bad thing most of the time. Just makes for a slower process.
Between the Standard and Frontier I would go Standard for most situations. The Frontier is a little better in powder, IMO, so if you were seeing a fair bit of powder, then that would be one thing that would lean me in its direction. But if powder is relatively rare or if you don’t really see deeper powder, then the Standard handles powder fine, especially when it’s not too deep. Both are good in icy conditions, but the Standard is a little better, IMO.
If I had to choose one that was better than the other in terms of ease of ride, I would say Frontier, but there’s very little in it.
The Standard is better for jumps, IMO and butters. But for pretty much everything else there’s not much between them.
Overall, I would personally go Standard, unless I was seeing powder quite regularly or if there was deeper powder and wanted to take advantage of that. If not, then I’d go Standard, but you can’t make a wrong choice between them for what you’re describing, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159. With 11.5s you don’t really necessarily to size down for width on the Standard but it is more board than even a lot of wide boards. My instinct is that the 156 would be the better bet for you in the Standard. The Frontier, the 158W should be just right. The Standard 156 will still likely feel a little smaller than the 158W Frontier (as I’m sure the specs allude to as well), but I’d say the 156 Standard and 158W Frontier are closer in size than the 158W Frontier vs 159 Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
First, I just want to say I truly appreciate your efforts and responsiveness. I will surely be using your affiliate links for getting the Yes Standard (and hope everyone does the same).
I think I just need to know whether to get a 151 or 153. Here’s are my details:
5’8″
155 lbs
size US9 mens boots
Mainly ride in Colorado
Current board: Never Summer Shaper Twin 153
I’m an advanced rider – can go anywhere on the mountain, but I just won’t do cliffs. You sold me on the Standard as being truly the ‘do it all’ board’. I want to try a rocker/camber/rocker board, as I’ve been on a camber/rocker/camber for a few years now. The Standard seems like a perfect next board, and equally versatile (if not more) than the Shaper Twin.
I am often in the trees so quick turning is important, but I’m really big on carving, eurocarves whenever I’m on groomers. As such I also worry about toe drag. Also, I do a lot of nose/tail rolls off of knuckles, small jumps on side hits, etc.
Lastly, I want to make sure it’s good in powder. I think either size is fine in that area due to the slam back inserts.
Thanks!
Hi David, thanks for your message.
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but would size down for the Standard. The question is, as you’ve already narrowed down to, is by how much.
I would be leaning towards the 153, but it’s a close call and wither would definitely work. The 153 will give you a little more for carving and powder and while I think the 151 would be fine for you for carving and powder, I would be erring in that direction. The 151 would be a little better for quick turning/trees, but I don’t think you’ll have issues with that with the 153, and the 153 gives you a little more insurance in terms of toe drag, particularly as you’ll be eurocarving on it.
Also note, that the 153 is likely to feel a touch smaller than the 153 Shaper Twin, noting the following:
– Effective edge: 116cm on 153 Shaper Twin, 113.8cm on 153 Standard
– Waist width: 260 vs 256
– Width at inserts (assuming a 545mm (21.5″) stance width: 272mm/266mm, front insert/back insert on Shaper Twin, vs 266mm/266mm on the Standard
– Tip/tail width: 310cm/300cm vs 299cm/299cm
I think they’ll likely feel quite similar size-wise, but if anything the Shaper Twin probably feels slightly bigger. So, if you were to go 151 in the Standard, it would likely feel smaller than what you’re currently riding. If that’s what you’re after, then it’s no issue, but if you don’t want it to feel smaller, then the 153 is the better bet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi David, just want to chime in and say I bought my standard last year based on Nate’s recommendation and it has been everything I’d hoped for. By far the best board I have ever ridden.
Not sure if you’ve made your purchase yet or have had a chance to ride it, but to answer your powder question – I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Standard does in powder even without using the slambacks. I believe Nate mentions this in his review.
I expected to want to use the slambacks for pow days but the directional float is so good that I don’t feel the need unless we’re talking like knee deep powder.
Thanks for your input Steve. Much appreciated.
what do you think are the biggest differences between these Jones mountaintwin , yes standard uninc & yes standard. what would work best for me My current snowboard Gnu riders choice 158w is breaking so it’s time to try something new. Even if a snowboard can’t handle everything, I want it to work in the park on small jumps & halfpipes. it must handle speed and still be playful at lower speeds. It would have been good if it could handle powder and slush.
Hi Joakim
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I would be debating between the regular Standard and Mountain Twin. The Standard Uninc is more stable at speed and better for high speed carves, but it’s not as playful at slower speeds. It’s something that you’ve got to be aggressive with to get the best out of it. The Standard and Mountain Twin will be at least as stable at speed as the Rider’s Choice (and depending on the year of your Rider’s Choice – older ones were a bit more playful, maybe more playful at speed), but give you a little more in terms of powder performance. And still good for jumps and pipes, but maybe not as good as the Rider’s Choice, but not too far off.
Between the Standard and Mountain Twin, there’s not much in it. I re-tested both in the 2025 models and they’re both just really consistent, all-rounders that don’t really have any weaknesses that I could get out of them. The Standard is a little better in icy conditions, but the Mountain Twin is still decent in that area. Standard just a touch easier to butter and a touch easier to extract it’s pop. Overall a little more snappy than the Mountain Twin. The Mountain Twin a touch damper. But for the most part they are pretty comparable.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Thanks for the reply. I think your reviews are top notch. My Gnu is from 2018. It’s always difficult to choose something new that you haven’t tried. I’m wondering if yes standard is less clunky edge to edge, compared to my Gnu or jones. I am 173cm 78kg 44 eu
Hi Joakim
YES Standard, if you’re looking for a one-board quiver is a pretty safe bet, IMO. As is the Mountain Twin. Size-wise, I would go 156 for the Standard – and you’ll have no issues width-wise with your boots on that. The 153 would be a possibility too, if you wanted to go smaller, more nimble, more playful, at the sacrifice of a little stability at speed and float in powder. The 156 would give you a good balance between agility and stability, IMO. For the Mountain Twin, I would look at the 157, which I think will be wide enough for you, but if you’re worried about moving away from a wide board and aren’t sure about the width (and are considering the Mountain Twin), if you could let me know your typical stance width and binding angles, how deep you like to carve and the brand/model of your boots, and I can take a look and see what it might look like width-wise.
I’m a high-intermediate looking for a new board to replace a 2018 Rossi One 156. Before that, I had the 2015 version. I need excellent edge hold for Midwest ice, and something that rides switch well. I’m also looking for something that I can control well at slow speeds using my feet to steer, easy to scrub turns, forgiving, and be very stable at high speed.
I’ve stayed with Rossi for the edge tech and RCR, but now thinking a Typo or Standard would be a good bet for me. I’m not a fan of the new Rossi line and think the Typo or Standard would be an improvement – and you can set me straight if that’s not the case.
I don’t know if the Typo is a step down from the One or a lateral move. It certainly sounds like it has all the things that make the One a winner, but is better switch and might be a little more forgiving. I’m leaning Typo, but don’t want to sleep on the Standard if it is a better option and not a significant step up in stiffness/steerability, or not as forgiving.
I’m 5’7”, 185 pounds, Size 8 boots. First thought is a 158 Typo or 153 Standard, to stay in the weight range. I’m thinking a 156 Standard would be a bit too wide for my size 8’s, be tougher to pedal steer, and not be as quick turning. Maybe I’m wrong there. If the 156 wouldn’t be more cumbersome, I’d welcome the added stability of the longer board.
I really appreciate your reviews, feedback, and taking the time to answer questions so thoroughly. I look forward to your sage advice!
Thank you, Greg
Hi Gregg
Thanks for your message. Given what you’re describing, I think it’s a good bet to not go with another Rossignol One. The newer versions would be more difficult to pedal steer in the way you describe. You would get more stability at speed vs your 2018 model, but not as forgiving or easy to turn.
The Typo would tick all of your boxes except the stability at speed. You’d likely feel a step down in that respect on the Typo.
Generally a combination of very stable at high speed but also being forgiving and easy to scrub turns on is hard to come by, but the Standard, in my experience, does a pretty good job of it. You wouldn’t be looking at gaining a lot in terms of stability at speed on it vs what you’re used to, but it’s certainly more stable at speed vs the Typo. And it’s good in icy conditions, easy to turn and in my experience not a significant step up in terms of stiffness or anything like that vs the 2018 Rossi One. Vs the newer Rossi One, it’s more forgiving and easier to turn, in my experience. And it’s better for switch than the One as well, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, but with 8s would size down from that in most cases. I think the One in 156 was the right size for you, but, as you mention, the Standard is wider, so I would size down a little more on it, so I think the 153 would be your best bet. The biggest downside, as you’ve alluded to, is the reduced stability at speed. If you were to go Typo, the 155 or 158 would both be options. I would typically say 155 for your specs, if you were looking for something playful and weren’t too worried about stability at speed. But given you also want that stability at speed, I would say 158, if you were to go with the Typo.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks very much for your insight. I think the Standard is the right play for me (over the Typo). 153 or 156 would be my only decision. But…another board popped on my radar, and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to ride one. The Ride Shadowban. I think I’d be at home on that in a 157.
The Shadowban sounds like another great do-it-all board, that would tick all of my boxes, except for excellent edge hold in icy conditions. But if you believe some reviews/comments, it’s not so bad in icy conditions. If it fits me better than the Standard in more categories, I’m thinking I just need to keep my edges sharp and I’ll be fine. What do you think?
I do see your point about limitations – that is, some board characteristics can not co-exist. So, I realize you need to compromise somewhere.
Hi Gregg
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
We haven’t tested the Shadowban, but based on testing it’s predecessor, the Wild Life, and what we’ve heard, I think it would work for you. Didn’t get the Wild Life in any icy conditions when I rode it, so can’t say for sure on that front. Typically I find Ride boards to be OK but not great, but can’t say for sure with this one. Keeping the edges sharp would definitely help.
Hi Nate, always appreciate your insights. A couple of years ago I asked a question regarding what board to add to my quiver as I thought, while I really like how playful my NS Protoslinger was, it definitely was not suitable to any all mountain riding in my opinion given how soft it was (always slipping on ice.) Ultimately I decided to not buy another board at the time since I had only recently purchased the Protoslinger.
As a small guy, 5’5″ 135lbs or so, size 8 boots, would a 149cm Standard be a different enough of a ride to consider adding, as perhaps my daily driver? The fact that it’s essentially camber versus the rocker-dominant NS makes me think so but want your more informed opinion!
Thank you,
David
Hi David
Good to hear from you again. I think the 149 would be the best size for you for the Standard. And will definitely, IMO, make a difference in terms of icy edge-hold and stability at speed vs the Proto Slinger, even if your Proto Slinger is the 149 (which I’m guessing it is? as they haven’t had a 146 since the 2021 model). But yes, very different boards and would be worth adding next to the Proto Slinger, IMO. They make sense in a quiver, IMO. They’re not opposites or anything. It’s not like the Standard is highly directional or anything – it’s not like having a powder board and a park board, but they are certainly different enough to have in the same quiver, and the Standard makes for a really good daily driver, IMO.
Got it, Appreciate the input Nate! Think I will pull the trigger on the 149cm Standard!
Best,
David
You’re very welcome David. Happy riding!
Hey Nate! Big fan of you and your website. I was thinking about getting the Yes Standard as my next board. I currently rock a 152 Yes Typo; I love it but I feel like I’m outgrowing it. What size would you recommend? I weigh 150 pounds, height is 5’ 11’, and my boot size is US 9. I was thinking the 151 Standard would be perfect for me but it does seem that the sizing for this board is a little different. I consider myself an upper intermediate; I spend most of my time on groomers with a little bit of backcountry and maybe only 10% of park riding if that helps. Thank you
Hi Robert
Thanks for your message. I think the Standard would be a good step up – and I think the 151 would be right on for you for this board. It will likely feel a little bigger than the 152 Typo, but not by much. The Standard 151 is wider at the inserts, despite having a slightly narrower waist, vs the Typo, but the Typo does have a bit more effective edge. But overall I’d say the Standard 151 will feel like a little more board, but I think that size is right on and would be a good step up, given where you’re at.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, thank you for the insight! I ordered the board as soon as I read your comment lol. I know it’ll be a little bit of an adjustment going from the playful Typo to the stiffer, wider ride of the Standard but I also can’t wait to feel the increased stability and powder float. Thanks again, I hope you have a great one
You’re very welcome Robert. Hope the new board treats you well!
Hi Nate
Thanks for all the time you invest for all of us!
I’m really interested in the Yes Standard but I’m not quite sure about sizing. I’m 173 and weigh 72 kg (give or take), I wear Burton Photons size 43 (US 10).
Thanks in advance.
Mark
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156. But with the Standard being wider, I would size down to the 153 with 10s.
Hope this helps.
Hi Nate, thanks for such a great website!
I’m thinking about getting a Yes Standard and wondered what your thoughts on size and suitable bindings are?
I’m upper-intermediate, 189cm, 109kg/240 lbs, size 10.5 (US) boots. I’m leaning towards the 159 (as I think that suits my boot size) but considering 162 (for more stability).
I mainly ride groomers (and powder when available) but not park. I sometimes bomb about, but mainly ride more slowly and enjoy tight turns, trees and also trying switch, butters, side hits etc.
My current setup is a 159 Never Summer Revolver (wide version of the Evo) and Flux TT30 bindings, all from back in 2011. I ride centered stance, +/- 15 degrees. I’ve really enjoyed the Revolver, but I’m now looking for something a bit stiffer and still playful, which has led me to the Standard.
I’m not sure about what bindings to get though. I like responsiveness and support, which I think the Flux’s have given me, but they have worn out. They also have very little cushioning so I’m leaning towards something a bit more forgiving.
Any thoughts much appreciated!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 166, so even the 162 would be sizing down, which you want to do with this board with 10s. I think the 162 is probably the best all-round size for you. However, the 159 isn’t crazy small for you, given you’ve been riding a 159. And, from what I know of the Revolver/Evo, a soft flexing, predominantly rockered board. It should be noted that the Standard 159s effective edge of 118.8cm is quite a bit smaller than the 123cm effective edge on the 2011 Revolver 159. That said, I still think the Standard would feel more stable than the Revolver, even in the 159, because of the extra stiffness and camber. Not sure of the Revolvers exact width, but I imagine the width at inserts of the Standard 159 would be a little wider than it was on the Revolver, which would also add to it’s stability when landing jumps and flat basing.
In terms of powder float, I imagine the 159 Revolver to be not quite as good as the Standard 159, but not far off. All that rocker helps the Revolver in powder, but being a twin and being so soft doesn’t help it. And I would say the 159 Standard probably has a touch more surface area to it as well.
Long story short, I think the 159 Standard would still give you something that would improve your stability and float and remain good for tight turns. And you should find it nice and easy to butter. However, compared to what you’re used to, it will be a little harder to butter and may not be quite as quick edge-to-edge. But all round, I think it would be more suitable to your style and specs. The 162 though, would be the size I would choose for your specs, had you not been coming from a soft, rockered 159.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, thanks so much for your detailed response.
I’ve decided to go for the 159, mainly for manoeuvrability and hopefully it is stable enough for me.
Now I just need to choose bindings… I really like responsiveness, so am leaning towards another pair of Flux, even though I like the idea of getting some with better cushioning.
Do you think the XFs could be paired with the Standard, or are they too stiff? Being relatively heavy, i imagine I can go on the stiffer side?
I was also tempted by the Now Drives, as I’m intrigued to see if the skate tech makes any difference.
Thanks again!
Hi Matt
To be a good match for the board, I would ideally go with something in the 6/10 to 7/10 range, and for your specs, I would be erring stiffer, as you say. You could go as stiff as 8/10. I think 7/10 would be the sweet spot for the board. The XFs would be great. I haven’t specifically ridden the XFs on the Standard, but I can’t see how they wouldn’t be an awesome match. But yeah, if you wanted to go to the other end of shock absorption you could look at something like the NOW Drive or Jones Mercury. Still really good response as well – not quite as good as the XFs, IMO, but good nonetheless and amazing dampening. Just not as good board feel, IMO. Anything from the following, IMO, would also work well.
>>Our Top All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings Picks
Hi Nate, I need your advice. I am a 50-year-old (but still responsive :)) upper intermediate rider, 5.7 ft, 172 lbs, with 27 cm (9/9.5) Burton Ruler boots and Burton Mission bindings. I’m considering buying my first one-board quiver with good riding switch feeling and good floating in powder, and I was looking at the YES Standard and YES Standard Uninc, but I’m unsure which one to get. Also, what size should I go for? I’m concerned that the 153 might be too unstable when speeding, and the 156 might be too slow in edge changes. What would you recommend? Should I look for something different? Thanks!
Hi Luca
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning the regular Standard, since you want good powder float. It’s better in powder than the Standard Uninc, in my experience.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157. With the width of the Standard and your foot size, I would size down to the 153. But that does reduce your effective edge. The Standard Uninc is better at speed, so if you were willing to sacrifice a little in terms of powder, to get more stability, then the 153 Standard Uninc is an option. Or you could look at something else, if you’re worried about the sizing. I think you could get away with the 156 regular Standard, but it might feel a bit slow edge-to-edge. If you were going to consider something else, this is the place I would start. Let me know if you have questions about any of those as well.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for a great website and great reviews. I’m an higher intermediate rider riding in Sweden (ICY). I mostly go on groomers and sometimes pow when I’m lucky. New to the park but want to explore jumps etc more. I think Yes Standard ticks my boxes. Little confused size-wise. I have the skeleton key 162 right now. happy with it but looking for something more all mountain that can handle a little more speed.
I’m 220 lbs, 6’1″, size 10.5 (burton photon). I use step on bindings. Will that work OK with the board?
If not, do you have any other board suggestions? Unfortunately the demo options are very limited in Sweden.
Thanks!!
Hi Karan
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. So I think you’ve sized the Skeleton Key right. You could go 162 for the Standard too, but note that it’s likely to feel bigger, as it’s wider. Not only is it wider at the waist, but even more so at the inserts. The Skeleton Key 162 is 262mm at the waist and around 272mm at the front insert and 274mm at the back insert. With the Standard being more like 282mm at the inserts (which is quite wide for 10.5s). So you could size down to the 159. But given your looking for more speed, you could also do the 162, which would also be better in powder. Just won’t be as easy for riding the park.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I was hoping to get your thoughts/opinions on sizing – I did a quick search and couldn’t find too many others with my specs.
I’m 5’10” 205lbs size 905 boot.
I’d say higher intermediate/lower advanced rider, (been riding for about 20-25 yrs) – Live in Vancouver (so Whistler riding mostly) – “All mountain”, typically just cruising around the resort (not much park, if any then will be mostly small/medium jumps) but still want the ability for side hits and some light butter/presses… also ride with the wife so need something that’s easy to “ride slow” with when needed and also perform when we get those lucky powder days.
The Yes Standard seems to tick all the boxes for me, but I feel that my weight/boot size are making things a little challenging to pick a size… I feel weight wise I should be on a 159, but the width could possibly be an issue with my boot size?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Ricco
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161. But with this board and your boot size, I think the 159 is getting a little too big. You’d get away with it, but I think you’d find it a bit hard to work with when riding slow.
You could size down to the 156, which is also wide for your boot/foot size, but that shorter length would compensate for that. But still not ideal, as that’s shorter than what you’d probably want, especially in terms of effective edge. So probably not an ideal length of this board for you, IMO. If I had to say I’d say go 156. Won’t feel as good when bombing and won’t have as good a float in powder, but will be easier to manage when you’re riding slow and I think the trade off the other way around would be more noticeable.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Hope you had a great Christmas! I was having trouble trying to comment on your website so sorry for trying to reach you in a reply. I am interested in the YES Standard but am struggling with sizing. Im 5’10”, 170lbs, with a size 8.5 boot. Wondering if the 153 or 156 is the better option. By the looks of the width, Id assume the 153 is the way to go considering it would be the only board in my quiver. Just wanted to confirm with you. Thank you!
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message. Yeah, I agree. The 153 is your best bet, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158, but with 8.5s, I think sizing down to the 153 is more appropriate than down to the 156. The 156 wouldn’t be completely wrong, but I think the 153 would be the most optimal size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Amazing website! I currently have a Yes Basic 152. I’m looking for something similar, but faster and better in powder, however since I mainly spend time on groomers with my son, I don’t want anything powder specific, but I will be keeping the Basic. Do you think having the Standard as a second board/upgrade would work? I looked at the Uninc options, but look too aggressive. My specs are 176cm, 70kg and 8.5US Burton Ruler. I have Burton Genesis reflex bindings – hate the fact that I can’t micro adjust the stance with non Burton boards, but it is what it is. Current stance is 56cm, but with the combo Burton/Yes my only option on the Basic was to move the rear binding back one step, so it’s not a perfect symmetrical setup, but can still ride switch with a tail 2cm shorter than the nose. I could try different bindings, but after having had numb thumbs with Union bindings, I’m scared of moving away from Burton because toe straps that push down on my right foot don’t work for me. I’d still be riding the Standard switch just to have fun, to not lose the skill, and not on powder days of course.
Thanks,
Vito
Hey Vito
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would give you that little bit more in powder and could work in a quiver with the Basic. Note that you will be getting a stiffer (not super stiff, but you’ll still notice the difference, for sure) board that’s also wider, so it will take more input to get quick turns going and a bit more effort to get it to ollie etc. But it will feel more stable at speed and be able to lay into bigger/deeper carves, as well as giving you more in powder.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 153. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156 but with this board being wider, especially vs your foot size, I would size down to that. If it was going to be your only board, I’d almost go down to the 151 (which would be a closer equivalent size to your 152 Basic), but given you don’t want extra powder performance and you’ll be keeping the Basic, I think 153 makes sense in the quiver.
To note the size differences for reference, in case it helps with your sizing decision:
– Waist width: 253mm Standard 153 | 248mm Standard 151 | 250mm (152 Typo)
– insert width: 266mm Standard 153 | 261mm Standard 151 | 257mm (152 Typo)
– Tip/tail width: 299mm Standard 153 | 293mm Standard 151 | 294mm (152 Typo)
– Effective edge: 113.8cm Standard 153 | 112.3cm Standard 151 | 115cm (152 Typo)
– Contact Length: 101.8cm Standard 153 | 100.3cm Standard 151 | 110cm (152 Typo)
– Surface Area: 40.6dm2 Standard 153 | 39.3dm2 Standard 151 | 39.4dm2 (152 Typo)
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi,
Thank you for the thorough reply!
My next boots are probably going to be a 9US because I’ve struggled with mine for quite some time with numbness and tight toe area. Still okay with possibly a 151? Looking at my current setup with Basic 152, I don’t see how I would get heel/toe drag even with a boot half size bigger if I went for something with a very good reduced footprint. However, I’m sure I’d be happy with the 153 too. Thanks
Hey Vito
You’d have no problems with 9s on the Standard 151, IMO. I’m perfectly comfortable and haven’t had drag issues with US10s on boards with 261mm insert width. So I can’t see it being a problem with 9s.
Hello!
A year later and still haven’t added a second board to the Basic (I spent all the money on lessons for my son :p). I’m also looking at the Great, as you might have seen with my comment on the Greats review. However, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me please. You said:
‘If it was going to be your only board, I’d almost go down to the 151 (which would be a closer equivalent size to your 152 Basic), but given you don’t want extra powder performance and you’ll be keeping the Basic, I think 153 makes sense in the quiver.’
I was a bit confused as I assumed the 153 would have more powder performance than the 151? Thanks!
Hi Vito
Yes, I can see how that would be confusing! I assume what I meant to say was “given you want extra powder performance” rather than “don’t want”. And yes, the 153 will give a little better powder float for sure.
I have replied to your comment on the Greats review now as well.
Hi Nate!
I would really appreciate some advice on choice of a new board.
At 45 years I am done with everything park/rail/jump related. I just want to cruise the slopes on the few days I get in the season. Both quick and short, faster and longer turns. I like to “ride” the terrain and try to “surf” the slope. As it is real coast near it can get icy at times.
95kg/210 lbs(?), 189cm/6″2, size 11,5 Vans Aura Pro I got much thanks to your review.
Havent snowboarded a lot as an adult, and barely anything since Covid started. But decided to make that a thing this season, hoping for a day a week at the most.
Since getting new boots and realizing that I already was on or over the limit to toe/heel drag I am selling a Yes Typo 158 and Gnu Zoid 15(something) to get a one-quiver board. Of these I like the surf feel of the Zoid the most, and the looks. I have a thing for directional surf inspired/old style boards.
A bit limited as to what I can get here. Been recommended a 164W Jones Frontier, 157 Salomon Dancehaul, 161 Bataleon Camel Two, 162 Yes Standard. United Shapes Cadet is also avalible.
To be paired with either Burton Cartel or Union Force, as well as the Vans Aura Pro.
First off, what min/max waist width should I be within?
Which of these boards would you recommend?
And, are there any other board I should focus on instead?
In advance thank you for any and all help, and in general for making this site!
Hi Christian
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of size, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. So with the Dancehaul, I think it’s getting a bit on the small size. It is the kind of board you typically size down for and if you had smaller feet/boots, then sizing down 6cm would work, but the amount you want to size down is relative to your feet/boot size and with 11.5s, I wouldn’t size down that much for the Dancehaul.
The 164W Frontier could work. It’s not super surfy, but it has a bit of a surfy element to it, for sure. Size-wise, it’s good length-wise, IMO, but it may be erring a little too big in terms of the length/width combination. It’s wider at the inserts than the waist width would suggest, so it’s really quite a wide board. While you need a wide board with 11.5s, for sure, IMO, you can still go too wide, particularly if you’re at the higher end of your length range.
The Standard isn’t a board that I would call surfy. It’s not locked in or anything, but it’s not really surfy either. It’s also really wide – even wider than the 164W Frontier. With it being 162, it could be doable, but I still think the sizing isn’t ideal and it’s not surfy.
We haven’t tested the Camel Two, but based on other similar Bataleon boards, I think it would be the best match of any of those. And I think the 161 would be a really good size. Similar Bataleon boards we’ve found to feel quite surfy (likely owing to the 3BT, in part), so I think this fits your description well – and should work really well size-wise too.
Some other options include:
– Bataleon Cruiser 161 – you could also go down to the 159 in this one if you wanted to err a little shorter. It’s wider than the Camel Two, so you could go a little smaller if you wanted more maneuverability, but the 161 would work well size-wise, IMO.
– GNU Hyper 159W – this is on the smaller side for you, IMO. But it’s doable and this is a nice and surfy feeling board.
– Jones Mind Expander 162 – not quite as surfy as the Hyper but still quite a surfy feel
Hope this helps
Hi again Nate, and thx for your fast reply!
One thing I do like about your review is width at the inserts, that is something all brands should state imo.
At 11,5 US in Vans, what would be my min / max width to stay within?
I havent thought about the Gnu Hyper, as I kinda was looking for a new brand to try out. But local shop sell these, and I have send them a mail. But, at 159W could be a bit narrow or short?
The importer of Jones did not recommend the Mind Expander for me, said it was the wrong kinda board for my use. Also did not recommend the Frontier. Kinda weird to not promote your own goods, but also something I find interesting if they dont want me to get a bad experience. Havent tried any Jones before, but always thought the Hovercraft looks like the definiton of my kinda board. Just think it wont fit my level, other gear or use.
If going by stats alone, how would you think the Bataleon Camel Two and Cruiser would differ? Also, how is the grip on harder / icy conditions?
In advance thanx!
Well, went with the 159W GNU Hyper! Thx for your input 🙂
You’re very welcome Christian. Apologies I couldn’t get to your other question sooner – was a crazy weekend!
Very strange that the Jones importer didn’t recommend them. In particular the Mind Expander, IMO, would be a good bet for what you’re describing. I think the Hovercraft would work for your style as well, but it is a bit stiffer and little more advanced than anything else we were looking at. But I think the 159W Hyper should work well for you. And it’s good for icy conditions. It should be a really good width for 11.5s, IMO. So no worries with width, I wouldn’t imagine. In terms of length, it’s on the shorter side for your specs, but it shouldn’t feel tiny or anything.
Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for your website and your reviews according to snowboard. I’m looking to get a second versatile snowboard like a directional twin all-mountain with good floating in powder. Then i’m interested in volume shift board or to get mid Width board to improve floating. I guess Yes standard would be the perfect one, but i’m wondering which size to get. I’ve red according to Volume Shift board (Yes Snowboard) to get a size down. My normal all mountain size is 161 with normal width (US10). How many cm to get down with volume shift board (Yes Standard) in order to have playfulness and nice floats into powder days ? 159 or 162 ?
Many Thanks,
All the Best,
Gaétan .B
Hi Gaétan
Thanks for your message.
If you’re typically a 161 and have a US10 boot, then I would go down to at least 159, the 162 is going to be too big, IMO.
Depending on your specs, the 156 could work. Hard to say for sure without having your specs. The 159 is going to float better in powder for you, but the 156 will feel more playful, so depending on which of those you want to optimize the most. But if you could also let me know your height/weight, that would help. And if you could also let me know more about how you like to ride – e.g. do you want to be able to bomb fast on this board? go in trees? do you do any freestyle tricks – butters, ollies, boxes, rails, jumps etc? Or anything else about how you ride.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I was thinking to go with 159 on Yes standard too. I’m riding all mountain with some freestyle and backcountry. I have all ready a board for all mountain oriented freestyle for groomers and park/rails session but for now I would like an All mountain more rigid for floating in powder (Jones Mountain twin 160, Yes Standard 159, Bataleon Thunderstorm 161) in order to improve slashing and floating points with Freestyle specs. I like the Standard according to shifted volume for powder with short length for spins and jumps, as my usual all mountain length.
I’m 6′ tall and 188 lbs and US10.
All the best,
Hey Gaétan
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah I think 159, given it’s going to be your more powder oriented vs your other all-mountain freestyle board. The 160 Mountain Twin and 161 Thunderstorm would also work as well. But yeah, if you wanted that little bit shorter length for spins, then the Standard 159 gives you that.
That’s all good points, I will probably go for Yes Standard 159. Many thanks for your reply and advices according to my questions. I will share your website to friends.
All the best,
Gaétan B.
You’re very welcome Gaétan. Thanks for spreading the word and I hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all your detailed and thorough product reviews. I really appreciate the effort you put into them.
I’ve read through all the comments and still struggling to decided between the 159 and 162 for the Yes Standard.
I’m 6’2, 190 lbs, and have size 12 boots. I currently ride a 159W Forum Youngblood from 2010. I used to be really heavy into the park for jumps and rails, but my riding style has shifted more towards All-mountain freestyle, back bowls, playing around in the trees, and bombing some groomers. I’ve been happy with my 159W for most of these areas except for the back bowls, powdery days, and icy days.
Which size would you recommend?
Hey Dylan
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 161/162, so that would be closer to the 162. Because of your boot size, the 159 isn’t wide for you, so size-wise, it’s going to feel similar-ish to your 159W Youngblood. I say similarish, because it looks like that was a softer board and was an all-rocker profile. Rocker and softer flex tend to make a board feel a little smaller, so I think you’d still find the 159 Standard to feel a little bigger than that. It’s stiffer and has camber. I find it really good in icy conditions, so I think you’re going to see an improvement there regardless of size. And an improvement in terms of bombing/stability at speed, even in the 159.
In powder it’s hard to say for sure, but the 159 vs the 159W youngblood may not have any powder advantage. One thing with all rocker is that it tends to float decently in powder. I mean I doubt the Youngblood would have ever been great in powder, as a twin freestyle board, but the rocker would have helped it be better than it otherwise might be. The Standard isn’t true twin, but it’s pretty close to being a twin. Using it in the Slam back inserts, I would say would give it a little advantage, as you wouldn’t have been able to set the Youngblood back as far as that. In the 162, because of that extra surface area, I imagine you’d feel quite a noticeable improvement in powder.
For trees, I imagine the Youngblood was fairly easy to weave through the trees on. All that rocker and that soft flex probably made it pretty quick/easy to get from edge-to-edge, I would imagine, but having not ridden it, I couldn’t say how it would compare to the Standard accurately. But my guess is that it will take a little more work in the trees than the Youngblood was. Though I don’t imagine it would be worlds apart if you were on the 159. On the 162 you’d likely notice a bigger difference.
So, long story short, both are doable for you, IMO. The 159 is already going to give you the improvement in icy conditions and for bombing/back bowls, IMO. So I think the main deciding factor is whether you want to get better tree (159) or better powder (162) performance.
I can see why it’s a tough choice!
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey there.
I’ve been shopping for a new snowboard for a little while now, but it’s been difficult given some of my wacky stats. I’m looking for an all mountain or aggressive all mountain board. I would say I’m an intermediate to advanced rider and I typically ride groomers or hard snow.
My main problem is my boot size. I wear a 10-size boot, while being 215 LBS and 6,1 height (185 cm) The first board I was looking at was the YES standard 162, but I think it may be a bit too wide for me. Any recommendations, on sizing or a different board altogether?
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. The Standard is wider than normal though (and even more so than the waist width suggests). This width isn’t typical of a regular 162. It’s wider than a lot of wide sizes. If you were to go with the Standard (or Standard Uninc, if you wanted to go a little more aggresive), then I would size to the 159 to compensate for the extra width. Even the 159 will be wide for your foot size, but taking off length will help to compensate for that. But if you wanted to go with a board that was good for your foot size in a longer length, like 162-164 kind of thing, then there are definitely options.
Some more aggressive options include:
– Jones Aviator 2.0 – 162
– Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 160 (reason I’d go 160 and not 163 for this one is that it’s also a bit wider than normal, though not as wide as the
Standard. The 163 would be doable, but it’s getting pretty wide by that point.
– Burton Custom X 162 – though note that this is really aggressive, if you wanted to go less aggressive, the regular Custom is still quite aggressive but more manageable.
– Nitro Team Camber – 162
Or if you wanted to stay a little more mellow:
– Jones Mountain Twin 160
– Arbor Shiloh Camber – 162
Hope this helps you with some options
Hi Nate!
I would really much appreciate your feedback regarding the following:
I have been snowboarding for the last 3 years (about 15 days a season) with rental boards.
I went to my local shop to get my 1st snowboard and after reading your review I went for the Yes Standard size 153 (The shop owner highly recommended this size for)
The thing is, size guides for snowboards are not easy to understand for newbies and After reading about sizes I realized I should have ordered size 156.
The shop owner says I can only switch to what he has in stock and fits my size which is:
– Bataleon Goliath+ size 158W
– Jones mountain twin size 157
The shop owner says I would enjoy the size 153 Standard and that it doesn’t matter much because of the mid-bite and the profile of the snowboard.
My stats are:
Height: 5’11”
weight: 185lbs
Shoe size: 11.5US
Riding style:
Groomers, 70% blues (or reds in Europe) with 30% blacks (and some black diamonds)
I Do little Powder and no park.
I do freeride when I’m alone and Freestyle with friends.
I usually ride quite aggressive
Please help me by telling me the risks of taking the 153 Standard board or taking 1 of the other boards (and say which one).
Hi Jean
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. The Standard is a board you can ride a little shorter, however the main reason for that is because of its extra width. With 11.5s that’s not going to be an issue for you. So I would go 156 at the smallest. You could go 159. I think you’ll find the 153 too small. Especially given how you describe your riding. If you were going to be using it predominantly in trees and/or in the park, then you might get away with it, but to use as a one-board-quiver, I would be debating between the 156 and 159 with your specs and how you describe your riding. One problem with going to one store is that they will want to sell you something that they have in stock (which is understandable from their perspective but not necessarily the best outcome for you). At least when you buy online you typically have all the options you can think of and you just get it from the store that has what you want, rather than getting something that the store has.
That said, I think the Goliath+ 158W would be a really good option for you size-wise and for the style you’re riding. Note that Bataleon boards feel a little different to the average board, because of the 3BT. But I find it’s something you can get used to pretty quickly. For more details on what we thought, check out our Goliath+ review here.
The Jones Mountain Twin would also work, but in the 157 it would be too narrow for your boots, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I just wanted to Thank you and let you know I appreciate the time you took to answer.
It may sound silly, but you gave me peace of mind! I have no one who KNOWS snowboards that could’ve offered me a solid advice.
By the way,
I miss-typed the size for the Jones Mountain twin board, it was offered to me at size 159W but still, I think I’ll go with the Goliath+ thanks to your awesome review! 🙂
Take care!
You’re very welcome Jean. Hope it treats you well and that you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
First of all, thanks for creating this amazing site!
I am 68kg, 179cm tall
My boots: Burton Swath US size 10 (a bit too small for me, will get 10.5 in the future)
Binding: Union Strata
I am a low intermediate rider, looking to get a new snowboard. I have been using my friend’s board (Capita Outsider). I like to try a bit of everything, and currently working on my switch and carving. And would like to get a board which works on hard snow and icy condition.
The boards on my shortlist are:
Yes Standard: what size should I get for this board? is it a good board for my level?
Jones Mountain Twin (all mountain): Since it is hard to get Yes board here in Japan, I am also considering this. How is this board comparable to Yes Standard? What size?
Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker: How is this board comparable to Yes Standard? What size?
Do you have any other board suggestions?
Thanks
Hi Eddie
Thanks for your message.
As an lower intermediate rider, I would say the Terrain Wrecker is your best bet. The Standard and Mountain Twin still doable though, if you wanted to go one of those. I would say the Standard would be the most challenging, but only by a little bit versus the Mountain Twin. Then the Mountain Twin a little more challenging than the Terrain Wrecker. Again not by that much though. Compared the Outsider, I think you would find any of them easier to ride, IMO. So, if you’ve been going OK on that, then I think you’d be fine on any of them.
The Mountain Twin is quite similar in terms of overall performance vs the Standard. For more details check out our Mountain Twin review. A slightly different feel, but similar overall performance.
Size-wise, I would be looking at:
– Standard: 153
– MT: 154
– TW: 154
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply.
I think I will go with Jones MT if I could not get Yes Standard, since I prefer camber board. How does MT do in the aspect of switch riding compared with Yes Standard? You said that the MT is slightly different feel from Standard, how so? Just curious.
I found a pretty good deal on Jones MT (far east limited edition 22-23) here in Japan, do you know if it is the same spec-wise?
Thanks
Hi Eddie
Just to note, the Terrain Wrecker does have camber in it, it’s just that it’s rocker between the feet, then camber under the inserts and towards the tip/tail (which is what we refer to as “Hybrid Rocker”. That said, the Hybrid Camber (camber between and under feet, then rocker towards tip and tail), that the Standard and MT have does feel more like full camber than the TWs version of Hybrid Rocker, IMO.
The MT is good riding switch, IMO, particularly if you set it up in a centered stance, which is easy to do as they mark out a “freestyle” stance on it, which is centered on effective edge (you still have a slightly longer nose than tail, but that’s all outside the contact points, so you don’t feel the difference much on harder snow).
That’s the first I’ve heard of the Far East Limited version, but having had a look at the specs, the only difference that I can see is that it shows a narrower reference stance. Otherwise looks to be the same.
Between the Standard and the MT, the feel isn’t super different, but the MT has a slightly mellower feel and feels a bit lighter. The flex is a little more even from tip to tail and through the middle as well, with the Standard being a little stiffer in the middle and a little softer in the tip and tail, in comparison.
Thanks for detailed explanation!
so for MT far east version, should I size it up to 157 since I will get a US 10.5 boot in the future (68kg, 179cm tall) . I am a little worry about the heel/toe drag. If this is not a problem, I do prefer a shorter board.
Thanks again.
Hi Eddie
For your specs, I think the 154 is the better bet. It’s a little borderline width-wise with a 10.5, but you may still be OK. Assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width, you’re looking at around 263mm at the front insert and 264mm at the back insert. If you’re riding with a flat back binding angle (like 0-6 degrees) and carving quite deep, then it could be borderline for boot drag. But otherwise should be OK, if you get a lower profile boot. When you get new boots, pay attention to the profile and try not to go with something too bulky and you should be OK. If you have aspirations to eurocarve or something like that, then you may need to go wider but in that case, I would go for the 153W (a new size they brought in for the 2024 model) rather than the 157. I’m not sure if the Far East version comes in the 153W though.
Hi Nate, thanks for your work! Could you, please, advise what size of this board is the most suitable for me? I’m 141 lbs, 5.4ft an 7.5 us size. As for experience, I think I’m close to advanced level. Mostly, I prefer riding on mid-high speed, explore some uneven terrains near the slope. For the next seasons I’m looking for a stable board that allow me to progress further on the slope and give me an opportunity to have fun on more advanced freeride terrains.
P.S. My current board is a stiff 148 stick with 24.2 width
Hi Artem
Thanks for your message. Your best bet is the 149, IMO. Everything would be getting too big for you, IMO. Note also that while the width on this is 245, there is a bigger contrast between the waist and width at inserts on this compared to the average board, so it’s a little wider than it looks. Without knowing what your current board is I couldn’t say how much difference, but it’s likely to be more than 3mm wider at the inserts vs your current board. So, overall, depending on the effective edge of your current board, it may feel a little bigger. It could still work for you in the 149 for sure. But if you don’t feel like you want to go bigger than your current board, then it might be better to look at something a little narrower in that 148-150 range.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Just wondering if you have had any time on the new YES Pyzel? I have been riding the YES standard last winter but I want to try something new for the upcoming season. I was just wondering if you noticed any major changes from the standard when riding the Pyzel. I loved the standard for its ease of use and I know the Pyzel may demand a bit more aggression but just wondering if I would struggle. Would class myself as intermediate/advanced and looking at going to the 160w in size 11/12 boots compared to my standard which is 159 in size 11/12 boots.
Cheers!
Hey Finn
Thanks for your message. Unfortunately we were unable to test the Pyzel last winter. So can’t give you much to go off from personal experience. On paper, it looks like it would be a little more aggressive, with it’s full camber profile. The flex is rated the same as the Standard. Hard to say if it feels the same flex-wise, having not ridden it, but it’s likely to be similar.
Size-wise, the 160W is probably your best bet, though if you were in 11s, you’d probably be alright on the 158 (if that length was OK for you). According to YES it’s 270mm on the back insert and 274mm at the front insert, which is typically wide enough for 11s, in my experience. The 160W looks to be around the same as the Standard 159 at the back insert and a little wider at the front insert. If in 12s, then I would say the 160W is your best bet.
Hope this gives you something more to go off
Hi Nate, what size of Yes Standard/Uninc would you recommend for 179cm / 70kg rider with 11US boots size. Thanks
Hi Piotr
Thanks for your message. I think the 156 would be a really good size for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
And what about bindings? Any recommendations? I am teared between Cartel X and one of the Union (Atlas?) Do you have any comparison?
Take care
Hey Piotr
The Cartel X and Atlas would both work with the YES Standard and Uninc. If you end up going regular Standard, then you could also go a touch softer flexing if you wanted to but those would still match the regular Standard. Between the Cartel X and Atlas, it kind of depends on how you’re wanting to be riding. If you’re looking for a bit more in terms of board feel, then I’d be leaning Cartel X. You can compare our score breakdowns on them here. If you were to go Standard, then the Strata from Union would be a good bet, but I would be leaning Atlas or Falcor, if you go Standard Uninc.
Hi Nate – firstly, your site is brilliant and I find your reviews honest and trustworthy – big thank you from me!
I was hoping you might be able to guide me a little. I’m a new snowboarder with only about 2 weeks of experience so far (7 days longest consecutive), and able to ride greens and most blues confidently. I don’t have much desire to ride park or do large jumps, and like carving resort groomers here in New Zealand (which don’t have powder and can be icy or slushy at times).
I recently had my loved YES Basic replaced under warranty and have a store credit to get a replacement board, which got me thinking about getting something more suited to groomers than park, with top of my list based on your review being the YES Standard. The sales guy in store however, thought that something directional like the Bataleon Cruiser might suit me better, and assures me that it is actually a very easy ride which rarely catches edges, so could suit my skill level.
My issue is that from your review of the Cruiser it might be a bit tricky for my level of experience.
What are your thoughts on whether the Cruiser would be a potential match, and if not, can you suggest anything better than the Standard for me (or should I just get it!?). Note that my other favoured board (Ride Shadowban) is sold out here and the store not stocking Ride anymore.
Many thanks in advance for your reply!
Hi Jon
The Cruiser isn’t super hard to ride or anything, but I would typically recommend it to more experienced riders. It could work. But to be fair, the Standard will be similar in that sense, so you could go Cruiser, if you were thinking of Standard anyway. That said, the Standard will do better in icy conditions, though the Cruiser isn’t bad there.
If you wanted to go more directional but a little easier to ride, then you could look at something like the GNU Hyper, Jones Mind Expander or Jones Frontier.
If you’re not really riding switch, then you can certainly go with something more directional, but it doesn’t mean you necessarily have to either. So the Standard could still work – or if you want something a little easier, the YES Typo or something like the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, could also work (and both good in icy conditions).
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
first of all, thanks for all the great reviews!
I bought the YES Standard 159 last year and I really love the board. So far I have used the board with my old Flow binding and Burton boots from 2008 and now it’s time for an upgrade. I am therefore looking for a suitable binding and also new boots for my YES Standard.
My boot size is about US11-12 and I would describe myself as an advanced rider doing mainly groom and riding at rather fast speeds.
What do you think of the Burton Step-ons for the YES? I find the convenience kind of attractive.
Cheers,
Seb
Hi Seb
Thanks for your message.
The Step-Ons (either the regular Step On or Step On Genesis in terms of bindings and Photon or Ion in terms of boots) would be a good flex match to the Standard and your style of riding. In terms of whether you’d like them or not, I think it depends on the feel you’re going for. I find the Step On system really locks you in place, so there’s not a lot of freedom of movement, besides the flex of the baseplate and highback. So, I find them really good in terms of response and for carving and bombing. But not so good when it comes to board feel, in terms of pressing, ollying, etc. So, if you think you’d like that more locked in feel and don’t really do a lot of freestyle stuff, then I think you could like them.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all your content and advice, it’s truly a godsend for the average boarder. I’m 6’0” and 175-180 with a size 11 boot. Almost never do park, but do enjoy some side hits. Don’t hit trees too often either, mostly steeps and groomers with the occasional off-piste action. Is the 159 too big for me?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, so I think it’s doable. It’s still a little wider than ideal for 11s, IMO, but it’s certainly doable. You have the same height/weight specs as me and I really like the 156 and find the 159 too big. But you do have bigger feet than me and that makes the 159 more doable for sure. So it’s a close call between the 159 and 156. If it was me, I think I’d still ultimately go 156, even if I had bigger feet, but then I’d be doing more trees and freestyle stuff than it sounds like you’ll be doing.
One more thing to take into account in your decision. Not entirely the same as your case, but I had someone recently who went with the 162, being 5’11”, 220lbs and with an 11 boot. They were using it mostly for freeride oriented stuff too. They said they found it a bit big and thought the 159 would have been the better bet. Doesn’t mean you have to err smaller, but just another piece of info to include to give you more perspective.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much Nate, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to messages like mine and so many others. I ended up going with the 156. Can’t wait to take it for a spin next winter.
Your hard work does not go unnoticed!
You’re very welcome Steve. And thanks for your kind words. Hope the Standard treats you well!
Hi Nate, firstly thank you for all your in depth reviews
I’m a strong intermediate rider, 83Kg, size 10 boots, 173cm tall.
I currently ride a yes typo 156W which is comfortable, soft and easy to ride.
I primarily ride in Australian conditions, which are icy, lots of heavy wet snow. However I am also going to ride in Europe next March 2024. I ride the odd black run, but mainly love side country, blue groomers and a little POW. I don’t care about park.
I am looking for an all mountain/freeride board, that can handle chunder and uneven terrain, that can do a little pow (not a pow specialist) and is good in icy conditions. I want to charge through terrain, take a legitimate step up from my typo without going to aggressive. I only ride 1 week per year, so I am typically not board fit by the time I snowboard.
The boards on my shortlist are:
Yes standard – worried this isn’t enough of a step up from typo?? Is this significantly better at crud and chunder than the typo? Your thoughts?
Yes Standard Uninc – was advised by the store that this board is more aggressive and can buck off the rider due to the carbon build. Is this board significantly better at crud and chunder than the standard? Or is standard sufficient, as in the stiffness of uninc not required/required?
Soloman Assassin Pro – Was told this was a good option, slightly more forgiving than the standard uninc. However not an ice specialist. Your thought?
Jones Stratos – I think this is too aggressive but was recommended this board and advised that this board is more forgiving than the standard uninc. However more versatile in powder.
Do you have any other board suggestions?
Appreciate your feedback
Regards
Ben
Hey Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard is a significant enough step up, if you’re just looking to take a step up without going too aggressive. And does handle crud/chunder noticeably better. Not world’s apart, but noticeable nonetheless. The Standard Uninc is another step up in crud/chunder, but it is also more aggressive – you do have to be more aggressive with it to get it to respond. Though I wouldn’t say it’s too much more aggressive than the Assassin Pro. Maybe a touch. But better in icy conditions, IMO. So if you were to go more aggressive, given you need that extra icy performance, I’d be leaning Standard Uninc, but I think Standard is enough of a step up for what it sounds like you’re looking for and that’s what I’d be leaning towards.
I found the Stratos less forgiving than the Standard Uninc – not much in it, but I didn’t personally find it more forgiving. It’s noticeable stiffer in my experience. I think it otherwise works for what you’re describing, but given you still want something htat’s a bit forgiving, I’d still be leaning Standard. If anything I’d look at the YES PYL, if you were wanting to go a bit more directional. It’s stiffer than the Standard Uninc, but softer than the Stratos – but the camber profile is a little easier to manage vs Standard Uninc, so I think that would be doable. But still a bit more aggressive than the regular Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much for your feedback,
I am now leaning towards the standard 156 and I need to select bindings.
I am deciding between the Burton Cartel and Cartel X. (I currently have Malavitas on my typo and love them).
I was recommended Cartel X, I am told that the stiffness of Cartel X is the same as the old Cartel from a few years ago. Do you believe that Cartel X is a good choice, or should I just stick with the Cartel?
I thought that Cartel X would provide future versatility in the event I buy another freeride board. I just want to ensure that Cartel X are not significantly stiffer than Cartel (i.e. too stiff).
Thanks again
Ben
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the 156 is a great choice size-wise for the Standard for you. In terms of bindings, I would be looking at 6/10 to 7/10 flex to match the Standard best.
In terms of the Cartel. By my feel, the new Cartels are a touch softer than the Cartel’s of old, but they’re nothing super different. They have a noticeably softer highback than the Malavita, but they have a stiffer baseplate. So whilst the highback makes them seem quite soft, if you were to just judge from twisting the highback, they are still around a 5.5/10 flex overall, by my feel. Similar overall flex to the Malavitas. Just that the Malavitas have a stiffer highback but softer baseplate. The Cartel X are stiffer, but they are still a good match for the Standard, and that’s what I would personally go with on the Standard between them and the Cartel. By my feel they are more of a 7/10 flex (Cartels of old, more like a 6/10 flex – so stiffer than the new Cartels, but not as stiff as the Cartel X – at least not what I felt from them). But given that you already have the Malavitas (and whilst they are a different feeling binding to the Cartel for sure), I think the Cartel X makes more sense in your quiver, and I think it’s a better match for the Standard. The Cartel would certainly work with the Standard, but I’d go Cartel X.
Wow this is wonderful advice, thanks again Nate. You are the most helpful snowboarding enthusiast on the internet
You’re very welcome Ben. Thanks for visiting and I hope your new setup treats you well!
Hi Nate
Thanks for the amazing reviews, its helping a lot choosing the right gear for me.
I’m looking to buy my 1st snowboard but i am stuck with a few options:
Yes Standard / Yes Typo / LibTech TRS / Jones Mountain Twin
To give you a little context, i have 15 days of snowboard in total and consider myself probably low-end intermediate rider.
Starting to learn how to carve on easier slopes (can go down more difficult ones mostly with skidded turns). I do catch an edge here and there…ouch!
Ride mostly groomers (would say 90%) and some off piste/powder here and there.
I am looking for a do-it-all snowboard to hit small jumps in the groomers but that can also support my progress in carving, as i do want to ride a bit faster and keep up with my skier friends.
I mostly snowboard in Andorra and North of Spain which means that hard snow/icy conditions are quite frequent.
I’m 180cm tall ~ 5’11” / 74 kg ~ 165 lbs
My boots: Ride the 92 (6/10 flex) / Size 9
No bindings yet but looking to buy Union Ultra/ Strata / or some rear entry options like Flow NX2-TM or Nidecker Supermatic.
What you think would be the best fit for me?
If you have any other board suggestions, i’m all ears. I didn’t go super deep into my research yet
Thanks!
Hi José
Thanks or your message.
I would be leaning Typo from that list. It’s the best option for your level, IMO, and offers something you can still carve with. And it’s really good in icy conditions. The other 3 are doable though if you did want to challenge yourself more, but would be a steeper (and likely slower) learning curve. Some other options to consider include the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker and also check out >>our top 10 intermediate snowboards which has some really good options in there for what your describing (the Typo and Terrain Wrecker both in there).
Size-wise for the Typo I would be leaning 155.
If you were to go Standard, I would err shorter than that – down to the 153. The rest 154s most likely, though going up to 157 is a possibility but more of a challenge for right now. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, but would be erring shorter, given your current level and particularly for wider boards like the Standard and to a lesser extent, the Mountain Twin.
Which bindings would depend partly on which board you ended up going with.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!
Thanks for the swift reply!
I agree with you that the typo is probably the best fit for my level right now, thanks for the help!
I just have some doubts regarding the size.. Im in between 155 and 158.. i do want the board to be somewhat playful but i also like to point forward sometimes and get some speed without having to pray for my life haha.
Im also planning to ride a bit more from now on (between 15 to 20 days a season) which i think will help me progress a bit faster.. Between my 1st and 2nd season there was a 3 year gap bcs of the pandemic and it felt that i had to relearn everything..
I also surf regularly and im the shape which i believe is also that supports the progress in snowboarding..
Do you think the 158 will be too much?
Which bindings do you think would fit the Typo and the ride 92 boots? Looking at supermatics/ flow nx2 and union strata
Thanks again for helping make the right gear choices mate!
have a nice day ahead!
Hi José
The 158 is doable. Between the 155 and 158, the 158 is going to be the steeper learning curve, but it will give you more stability at speed, and probably the most optimal size, once you do get to a more advanced level. Given that you’ll be riding a decent amount, you’re likely to get to that more advanced level quicker than if you were going to be riding less days, so the 158 will become more optimal quicker. But I do think you’d find the 155 more enjoyable for right now. Given you’re in shape and surf, that does help your case towards the 158.
In terms of bindings the Supermatics and NX2 are borderline too stiff for the Typo/your level, IMO. Particularly the NX2, which I’d say is too stiff (the NX2-TM not as stiff – more like Supermatic’s 7/10 flex). I would be leaning Union Strata as I think it’s the best match to the Typo and for your level. Note, if you go too stiff a binding for the board, it can result in the board feeling “twitchy”. Not sure the Supermatic/NX2-TM would be stiff enough vs the Typo for that to happen but possibly could feel a bit twitchy with those on it.
Hi Again Nate!
Thank you very much for all the detailed answers, I just bought the Typo and went for the 155. Gave a little thought about going to the 158 but i don’t want to get ahead of myself and grab a board I can’t handle yet. Besides, i still have some work to do on the fundamentals and riding switch, learning ollies, etc, so believe I made the right choice 🙂
I went a bit deeper on the bindings research and saw a few different options that might fit my setup.
Burtons Cartel
Rome Vice (probably the ones im more torn too)
Bent Metal Transfer
NOW Select PRO
Union Ultra and Strata
which one you think would be the best fit?
Thanks again for all the help!!
have a nice day
Hi José
I haven’t ridden the Transfer in a good few years, but it would do the trick, but when I rode in them, they felt softer than they’re rated. Would still work on the Typo, but the softest of the bunch I’d say and be erring towards the others. We haven’t tested the Vice but on paper looks like it would be a good match. The Select Pro is probably the stiffest option there, but still in range for the Typo. I felt them at a 6/10, bordering on 6.5/10 flex. The Ultra, Cartel and Strata would all be good bets, IMO.
Thanks so much for your responsiveness and time. Just reading your thorough responses has already helped me.
I am a very old, Northeast rider, about 20+ years of 8-10 times per year, I’m 5’7 160 lbs-ish, size 8 boots. These days I only ride blue trails, no park except for small hits occasionally. When there is some light powder I will hit it on sides and in trees when there is plenty of room around the trees.. I’m hoping to extend my riding a few more years.
I have been on the same GNU Rider’s Choice for 10 years and the rocker/camber profile and magnetraction pretty much worked for me. I ride switch when I need to get through moguls or because I’m on a long flat and have been on my toe side too long and I need a break. I find my board is kind of unstable or spinny at times (feels like I’m only riding on the center third of the board), especially at slow speeds, and at high speed I need to be on edge pretty good to hold a line and feel stable, probably center rocker? But the board has worked good eough, easy to turn, edge control on ice, ability to ride switch when I need it and I even could ride it through some small powder out west. I haven’t been paying attention to new options until now and asked myself, is this board best for me at this point?
I started out looking at Mervin boards to stay in my comfort zone and found new hybrid profiles with more camber, like the Terrain Wrecker. Then I discovered volume shift boards and flat camber like the War Pig that were supposedly still easy to turn and stop. Then I discovered Never Summer, somewhat different hybrid and edge control but great reviews and the Harpoon and Shaper sounded so good. Did I want to go directional and set back since mostly what I was riding was cruising down a blue groomer? Of course the more I read and asked around online, the more questions came up about these great boards:
1. did I really need rocker between my feet, especially with my ability now? (TW)
2. would a wider board be too much work to initiate turns especially short turns with my little size 8 hobbit feet? (Warpig, Never Summer)
3.would a camber centered board catch edges when I’m tired or going slow?
4. would a short or tapered tail be too hard to ride switch when I needed to (Harpoon)
5. would a big long nose directional feel like it’s in my way on groomers
Then I went on Reddit and someone suggested Jones Frontier, GNU Hyper and Yes Standard. I saw this review and the discussion on this thread and thought I should look into these, which I have and apparently so have others. I like what I see but except for the GNU these are going camber vs my safe, but not so great rocker.
It also occurred to me that a lot of my questons had more to do with how a board rides at slower speeds, which is the opposite of what most young bombers ask, but is my reality in the waning days of my riding. I just don’t have the muscle strength I used to and want to avoid careless riding falls because I break easy.
What are your thoughts about needing rocker centered vs camber, wider vs narrower, centered twin vs setback with some taper and the boards I have looked at. The Yes seems to check off pretty good for how and where I ride and my interest. Sorry for the long story, would appreciate your thoughts.
Hi Bob
Thanks for your message. I think the Frontier, Hyper or Standard could all work for you (a bit more on that below). Some thoughts about your questions.
1. I don’t think you need rocker between the feet necessarily, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad thing or that, as a more advanced rider, that it’s something you necessarily don’t want either. It’s a preference thing a lot of the time. Based on how you’re describing your relationship with your Rider’s Choice (of that vintage I’m thinking it’s probably a C2 profile), I think going with something like C2X makes more sense, to give you that little bit more stability.
2. My instinct is that wider boards might not suit you that well with your boot size. Unless you were to size down quite a lot. But then you’d be going quite short in terms of effective edge. I like some volume shifted boards, but I wouldn’t personally go with one as my daily driver or one and only board and with your foot size, I feel like having one could be fun if you went really short with it, but then I think you’d be missing something at times with that really short effective edge, so I’m not feeling it as a daily driver for you
3. Most hybrid cambers (camber between the feet (and often under the feet) and rocker tip and tail) don’t feel too catchy. Not from my experience. It can depend on how much rocker they have, how pronounced the camber is, etc, but for the most part that rocker towards the tip and tail makes them less catchy than full camber. I would say the equivalent of a lot of hybrid rocker boards. Again, it depends on a few things. But I’ve experienced some hybrid rockers that are more catchy (usually when the rocker between the feet is really subtle) than some hybrid cambers and visa versa. Given that you’re used to hybrid rocker, it would likely take a little bit of time to get used to the feel, but I think you would be fine so long as you don’t go too camber dominant or too stiff. I find that stiffer boards, particularly when the torsional flex is stiffer, tends to also increase the likelihood of a board feeling catchy.
4. Does make it harder. I don’t think you need to go true twin or anything, but going with something that’s not as directional is a safer bet, IMO, if you’re going to be riding switch a reasonable amount.
5. A really big nose can sometimes feel a little cumbersome when not in powder. I don’t tend to notice it too much unless it’s quite pronounced, but it can feel a little awkward having a ton of nose in front of you, when conditions are harder.
With boards like the Frontier and Standard, you’d be switching to a hybrid camber profile, but I’ve never found either of those catchy – and they’re fairly easy going boards, without being ultra soft or playful or anything, so still good stability as well. But they’re not difficult boards to ride, IMO, and are good to ride at slower speeds, IMO. Whilst not ideally suited to switch, they are both more than capable of it (particularly the Standard). The Standard is a semi-volume-shifted board, so in terms of sizing, you’d need to be careful with that. For your specs, I would be looking at the 153. Even the 151 would be a possibility, but at that point it’s getting a little on the short side, effective edge-wise. The Frontier is a wider than average board too, so something that I would consider sizing down for as well (though it’s a board you can ride a little longer in general, so that somewhat negates that). Depending on the size that your currently riding and are used to, will depend on which I would consider the best size for the Frontier. If you could le me know what your Rider’s Choice is that would be great, particularly given you’ve been riding as long as you have, size-wise we don’t want to go too far different as you’ve adapted yourself to that size.
The Hyper would be a fairly safe bet, given what you’re used to. Not quite as good for riding switch, but doable. Something like the Terrain Wrecker (TW) would give you a little more control riding switch and might be more suitable. It’s a little softer flexing and a little more playful vs the Hyper but not by a whole lot, but I find it (TW) not quite as good at speed or on a carve as the Hyper. But not a lot in it.
The Shaper is an interesting option. It’s got a little taper but not overly directional and actually pretty good for riding switch. It is a little volume shifted, is the only thing, but you might get away with the 153. But if you could let me know what size your currently riding, I can have a closer think about the suitability of it in that size.
Hope this helps
Sorry I left that out 2011-12 GNU Riders Choice 154.5
More specs for my RC
Hey Bob
Thanks for the extra info.
It’s a tough call for the Frontier. I kind of like the 152 for you, because I think the width works better but you’d be dropping a lot in terms of effective edge – the 156 is doable but on the bigger side, when taking into account width vs your foot size. YES Standard probably still leaning 153 – again going to feel quite a bit wider than your current board. Size-wise, I really like the Hyper in 154. For the TW the 154 would work well too all be it quite a bit wider than the Hyper.
Note that Mervin boards tend to have less of a difference between waist width and width at inserts than average, whereas YES and Jones boards tend to have a bigger difference than average, e.g. YES Standard 153, 253mm waist, but will be more like 268mm at the inserts vs the TW 154, which has a 255mm waist, but around 262mm at the inserts – both assuming a roughly 550mm (22″) stance width – if you ride them with a narrower stance, the width at inserts will be a little narrower – typically around 2-3mm difference for every 40mm (1.5″) narrower or wider). For the boards mentioned (all assuming a roughly 22″ stance width):
– Standard 153: 253mm waist, 268mm inserts
– Frontier 152: 249mm waist, 267mm at back insert, 263mm front insert
– Hyper 154: 250mm waist, 258mm back insert, 257mm front insert
– TW 154: 255mm waist, 262mm inserts
I like the narrower boards for you, size-wise as it allows you to keep a bit more length without going too wide for your boots.
I would also look into the Bataleon Thunderstorm (new for 2024), which is a little different with the 3BT, but I think it would work really well for what you’re describing – or the Goliath or Goliath Plus. The 3BT makes turn initiation really easy and makes them really catch free. And also even if they’re on the wider side, they are easier to manage in terms of turn initiation. They take a little more to get them into a carve, because that engagement point feels a little further away. But once I got used to them, I really liked that feel.
The Nitro Team Gullwing in 155 also comes to mind as an option. It’s on the narrower side for a 155, so would allow you to keep a bit more length. The Team Gullwing is a Hybrid Rocker, but it’s more stable feeling, in my experience, than the likes of the TW or Hyper. The Slash Brainstorm in a 154 is also a narrower option that comes to mind. Capita Outerspace Living in a 154 as well.
Don’t want to muddy the waters with too many options, but want to give you all the options that I think would work well for you.
Thanks. I was looking at a Standard selling on Ebay and asked the owner some questions. He bought the 153 with a size 8 boot and didn’t feel like it was too wide. He ended up buying a PY which suited his style more but said he didn’t really notice much difference between the boards
I think I usually ride 21.5″ stance, sometimes narrower depending on how my back knee is. BTW not sure if you notice the stance range differences between Mervin and others, every size Hyper and TW have stance between 20.25 and 25 inches, where Yes ranges from 18.9-22.1 for the 153 and goes up from there for each bigger board. I never even thought to check!
I also checked my board today for stance and noticed my rocker seems more pronounced, think it warped over the years? .I bet the C2X will be a big help.
When I read your reviews I usally check:.
1. Turns, especially ease of turns at slow speeds and skidded turns
2. Trees, which is also a good indication of ease of turns
3. Ice/hardpack grip
These are my bottom lines.
It seems overall looking at the boards I asked about, the Hyper, TW and Standard were all highly rated for those 3 but you didn’t mention low speed turning, trees or skidded turns for the Standard…maybe in older reviews? Seems right now based on size, turning and ice grip the Hyper and TW stand out, do you think Standard is siginficanty lacking in nimble easy turns especially at slower speeds ? Are any of the new boards you listed also especially good at those 3?
Thanks again for your thorough response and I will look at the other boards. You do a great job. I hope my questions are helpful to you and others.
Hey Bob
I’ve always found the Standard to be good for slower speed turning and in trees, so long as you size it right. e.g. with 10s, and a typical all-mountain size around 159, I’ll always go 156 for the Standard and in that size (which I believe is the most appropriate for that board, for my specs) it’s always turned pretty easily for me. Maybe not quite as easy as TW and Hyper but still easy.
Hi Nate, I’m back. How about the Yes PYL? I saw your reponse to a guy on that review who is also currently riding a GNU RC 154.5 and same size as me although a size 9 boot rather than my 8 and was intrigued. It’s a narrower board than the Standard. Would I find it similar to the GNU Hyper and Jones Frontier in ease of turning?
Hi Bob
The PYL is a bit stiffer than the Hyper/Fronter, which typically means more effort to turn, at slower speeds. The PYL is easier to turn that you’d think for it’s flex though. So I think it’s doable. Given your boot size, I think it’s borderline too big at 156 (which is it’s smallest size), however, it is something that you can ride a little longer with it’s more freeride shape, so it’s doable. Width-wise, it’s 250mm at the waist, 260mm at the front insert and 258mm at the back insert, so it is fairly narrow, which helps. Not great for riding switch, but more than doable.
Thank you again for your time and thorough answers.
You’re very welcome Bob
Hi Nate,
Love the reviews! My Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 154 broke last week and I am looking for a new board. I’m 155, 5.7, size 9, in-between high-intermediate and advanced. I like carving, moguls, trees, doing unimpressive 1s and 3s on small/mid-sized sidehits and pointing it down here and there.
Looking to buy an all mountain board that is kinda similar to the TW. Something that is still quick and nimble edge to edge at high and low speeds, but is a bit more stable at high speed and carves just a bit better than the TW. I tried the Dynamo 156, but it felt a bit heavy and I hated the magnatraction in soft snow (btw the magnatraction feels great on my TW in both icy and slushy conditions, idk if the profile of the board is the reason?). Sooo generally something a bit more aggressive than the TW, but still kinda playful and forgiving on shitty sidehits and lazy runs at the end of the day. I need a board that is good on ice, but is not too bad in powder (5-10 inch max).
I’ve looked through all your reviews and the Standard seems to be the best choice. However, I wonder whether it is better at speed than the TW? and also how would you compare the pop for small/mid size sidehits? Also, what size would you recommend?
Any other boards that come to mind?
Thanks!
Imanari
Hi Imanari
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would tick all the boxes for what you’re describing. In my experience, the Standard is more stable at speed than the TW. It doesn’t quite have as much pop as the TW, so that’s the only question mark really, IMO. Otherwise, I think it would be a good bet.
If you wanted to stick with a hybrid rocker, like the TW, then the Nitro Team Gullwing could also be an option. Or if you were OK going more directional, something like the GNU Hyper could work. But not great for riding switch.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the quick reply! The Nitro seems like a great option, however, I think that I want to gradually move towards camber boards, as I am starting to enjoy carving and jumping more and more (and from what I understand, camber snowboards are generally better for that).
How would you compare the Standard Uninc to the Standard and the TW? Does it have a better pop than the Standard and do you think that it is going to be too big of a jump moving from TW directly to Uninc? I worry that it might be a bit too aggressive and slow edge to edge. Wonder if that’s actually the case…
What do you think about the T Rice pro? Is it good for the riding style I mentioned or is it just another Pro board that only T Rice lovers buy 😀 ?
Kind regards,
Imanari
Hi Imanari
The Standard Uninc is a little more aggressive and a little bit more of a step up than the Standard, but I wouldn’t say it’s too big a leap from the TW. It’s only marginally stiffer than the regular Standard and I didn’t find it slow edge to edge at all, personally. The Standard Uninc isn’t as good as the Standard (or TW) in powder though, IMO.
Size-wise I would go 153 for either the Standard or Standard Uninc, and in that size I don’t think you’d find it too aggressive. Certainly more aggressive than the TW, IMO, but nothing crazy aggressive or anything.
Hi Nate,
LTNS! I have a question that might be a bit dumb, but I don’t know who else to ask. I decided to buy the 153 Uninc. 2024 BUT I WANT that sexy colorful base! I have to purchase the board online, as nobody sells YES where I live, but I don’t know how to select the colorful base (in all online stores there are two versions of the base – colorful base with black pig and black base with colored pig. Sooo how do I select the base I want? Does it depend on the size? I tried to contact YES (via IG, FB, CS and email) and a few stores, but no definitive answer at this point…Please help!
Hi Imanari
Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a definitive answer either. I think it’s just a lucky dip. It could be depending on size, but I think with “flip flop” bases like that it’s usually just lucky dip. One thing you could try is: when you order it, if there’s somewhere where they let you write a special note, you could ask them there “if possible could I please get the one with the colorful base and the black pig” or something like that. Or you could message the store after you buy and give them your order number and make the request. That’s the only thing I can think of.
Gullwing and Brainstorm both look promising. How are they on ice compared to the Yes, Mervin and Jones boards I am looking at.
Gullwing seems very similar to Hyper size wise but you feel it’s more stable than the Mervin C2X of the two boards? Stable at high speed or slow speed or both?
BTW I kind of throughout the Frontier because of the goldilocks issue, 152 too small, 156 too big?
Hey Bob
I would put the Gullwing and Brainstorm just a tier below the Standard, TW & Hyper in terms of icy edge hold. On the same tier with the Frontier.
From my experience, the Team Gullwing felt just a little more stable than the Hyper/TW.
Yeah, that’s my instinct with the Frontier – the goldilocks paradox applies!
Thanks Nate. The Bataleon boards also look great, but I’m seeing comments about them in reviews that they are not so great on ice/hardpack? A step below all of the above or in the 2nd tier with Frontier, Gullwing and Brainstorm.
Hi Bob
I would say Bataleon boards on average are a step below tier 2. To put it into numbers, typically I would say 3.5/5 for Bataleon in icy conditions vs 4/5 for the likes of the Frontier, Gullwing and Brainstorm.
Hey,
I can’t decide between the Salomon Assassin and Yes Standard. I’m a good intermediate. I cans ride switch, jump, spin and carve well. I want to lern butters and ground tricks but still be able to go carving. I like my ride playful. Wich one do you recommend?
Cheers
Hi Elie
Thanks for your message.
Both would definitely work for what you’re describing, IMO. I would personally lean towards the Standard, but don’t think you can really make a wrong choice between them. The Standard is a little stiffer than the Assassin, in my experience, so if you’re a lighter rider, then the Assassin could be the better choice, but it would also depend on how you sized them. They’re both sized a little differently too, so that’s something else to be aware of. Would be happy to give you my sizing opinion. Would just need your height, weight and boot size (already have the style you want to ride and your ability level, which I also take into account for sizing).
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
thanks for your answer. My weight is around 80kg, my boot size is 26,5-27cm and my height is 178cm. I was thinking to get a 156cm board. Initially I wanted to buy the The yes great uninc, but the 156cm version is sold out everywhere where I’m from. The 159cm is still available but I think it is to long, especially because I learned to snowboard on a very small snowboard and also because I love freestyling. I’m a bit concerned that the Standard is not as playful and less good to butter and switch on as the assassin. (I switch quite a lot)
Hi Elie
Yeah, I think the 156 Standard would be your best bet. I would typically put you on a longer board, but with the Standard being wider and your preference for going smaller, I would go 156. For the Assassin, the 159 is probably the better size, but the 156 is in range, given you like to err smaller. Note though the Standard in 156 will feel bigger than the Assassin in 156.
For butters, the Standard is easier to butter than you’d think. Even though overall it feels stiffer than the Assassin, in my experience, the tip and tail are softer than the rest of the board, allowing you to butter quite easily. 156 Assassin vs 156 Standard, I found both just as easy as each other to butter.
The Standard is very good for riding switch, IMO, so that’s not a big factor between them, IMO.
The thing that might lean towards the Assassin is sizing. Whilst I think the 156 is a good size for you for the Standard, because you want to go with something smaller, the 156 Assassin might be more your size.
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for you answer, very kind of you to take the time 🙂 much appreciated.
Ah ok, so without taking into consideration that I like smaller boards, you would put me on a 159cm on all 3 boards?
I heard that taking a board a bit smaller makes the ride more playful, and I like playful over speed. That is also why I was leaning more towards the All-Montain-Freestyle category (Assassin & Greats uninc) over the All-Montain in which the standard is.
Would the yes greats uninc in 159cm still fit for my size and ride style? Or would the 156cm be better for freestyle and playfulness?
Are the Assassin and the Greats uninc more freestyle and playful then the standard?
Hope I’m not asking to many questions. Thanks again, your answers have been very helpful.
Cheers!
Elie
Oh, I just realized that I gave you my wrong boots size. My size is 26-26,5cm (8-8.5US)
Hi Elie
No I wouldn’t go 159 for the Standard (or the Greats) for you. As I said (you may have misread), I would go 156 in the Standard. And whilst 159 is probably the more pure size for the Assassin, you could certainly go 156, if you prefer smaller boards. As per my last line of my last comment:
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I would be leaning Assassin 156 vs Standard 156 for you, given you want to go smaller and more playful, with the Assassin 156 being a smaller feeling board than the 156 Standard.
I didn’t mention the Greats, because you only have the 159 available and I think that would be too big for what you’re describing. I would actually go 154 for the Greats for you, with what your describing. It’s a board you can size down even more for. If you have the 154 available go with that, otherwise, I would be leaning 156 Assassin.
Hi Nate!
Hope your season’s been awesome! First off, really appreciate your review and insights on all these boards!
As for my question, I’m sure you’re asked this a ton but it’s quite lengthy to skim through :p
I recently purchased and rode the Yes Standard and it’s been a blast as something to do everything in. My question is, if you could have one board only between the Yes Standard, Jones Mountain Twin, and Capita Mercury, what would you pick and why?
I’m asking this because I own the Mercury, and will be demoing the Mountain Twin soon, looking to pick only 1 out of the 3.
(I ride in the west coast but will be moving to the east coast soon. I enjoy carving/turning, some pow, and trees/bumps. Recently getting into side hits/small-med jumps, and improving my tree riding)
Thanks man!
Wilson
Hi Wilson
Thanks for your message.
In your circumstances, and in many others, I would be leaning Standard. For a couple of reasons, but a big part is icy conditions performance. Since you’re moving out East, which, from what I hear, tends to produce icy conditions regularly, having that extra performance in icy conditions would be good. The Merc/MT aren’t bad in icy conditions either but the Standard is a step up, in my experience. It’s also good for everything else you’re describing. I preferred both the MT and Standard for trees and side-hits over the Mercury, it’s still good for those but I’d lean MT/Standard for those. For speed/higher speed carving, I’d be leaning more Mercury, but again, there’s not much in it.
Overall, I’d go Standard, but none would be a bad choice, IMO. Given you’re going to get a chance to ride all 3, what you like to ride the most should also be considered, but if you’re finding it hard to choose still after having ridden all 3, then I’d go Standard to get that little better performance in icy conditions.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Nate,
Need your help on sizing with the standard im torn between 151 and 153. Boot size 41 weight 73kg height 165 cm. Using the board as my all mountain swiss army knife. Speed, slashing, carving and popping of side hits and rollers. I have a greats for park riding. Bindings are now select pros.
Hi Matthew
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call for sure. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but given that the Standard is wider, and for your boot size, I would size down a little from that. Just whether sizing down 2 or 4cm makes more sense. I would be leaning 151 for you. However, I think it also depends on the size of your Greats. If you’re on the 151 Greats for park, then I would err a little longer, given you won’t be using this in the park and given that you can size down even more with the Greats. If you’re Greats in the 149, then I’d more inclined to go 151 with this.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, thanks for your feedback.
You’re very welcome Matthew. Happy riding!
Hey Nate thanks for all your reviews and hard work. I’m here from your mountain twin review and trying to find a fun board for all mountain riding somewhere in between a gnu rc3 and Jones stratos. I love the edge hold playfulness of the rc3 and stability of the stratos for charging. I’m a 35yo, 5’10, 220lbs, try to ride 22-23”stance, intermediate to advanced rider with 20 yrs experience. My top priority is confidence inspiring edge hold in icy Ohio/ New York conditions and then carving, then pop/ playfulness. I also prefer but camber/cam rock profiles. I probably spend at least 75% of my time on intermediate/expert groomer’s trying to carve as hard as I can and pop off any rollers/side hits I find. Maybe 15% riding park hitting small to medium kickers and 50/50 boxes or rails. The last 10% being out west riding groomers, slack country and praying for powder. I have a park specific board, I have a powder specific board. I’m looking for a playful all mountain directional board to ride 90% of the time on icy Ohio/ny conditions in between a 158wrc3 and 161w stratos. Looking at the 159 yes standard. Comparing it to rossignol one, libtech dynamo, gnu antigravity and libtech ejack knife. Thanks again for your time reading this and responding, I see you go through all your comments.
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard Uninc (the full camber version of this board), is your best bet. The biggest advantage of this over the Standard Uninc, is that you get better powder performance from this. But if you already have a powder specific board, then I would be leaning Standard Uninc, for what you’re describing.
Whilst the Standard Uninc is a little more aggressive than this, going with the 159, I think you’ll find it playful enough for when you want to get playful, but will give you more on carves than the Standard (or the Mountain Twin). Certainly more playful than the Stratos, but more stable than the MT or RC C3, IMO. So I think it would sit in a really good middle ground for what you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate
Thanks for the response. I looked it up and decided to buy.
Thank you
You’re very welcome Joe. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate,
your reviews have been very helpful to me so far. You give personal insights found nowhere, even at physical stores.
I am an intermediate rider looking for a good one-quiver board that can last at least for 2-3 seasons. I mostly go on resorts/groomers as I am usually in a group of half snowboarders and half skiers. Occasionally went to powder and off track (I’d like to progress here), never gone freestyle but could in the future.
Following some advice and your review, I am leaning to the Yes Standard (other options Nitro Team, Burton Process, Salomon Craft/Assassin, Yes Typo).
The only thing is that I am quite doubtful about sizing, I am 6’1, 180 lbs and 11 foot sized and in the past I have rode pretty much everything in the range 156-162 (also wide). I’d be leaning for the 159 but I would really appreciate your specific advice.
Also, if you can give me quick comparisons with the other boards I mentioned (minus the Typo) in terms of forgiveness, ease of carving and stability.
Thanks in advance!
Marco
Hi Marco
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for the Standard, I’d be leaning 159, but the 156 wouldn’t be wrong either. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 161. But even with 11s, the 159 will be on the wide side for your boots, so sizing down a touch makes sense. Given that you’re also an intermediate rider, you could potentially size down again to the 156. The 156 would give you a little more ease of maneuverability and better for butters and other freestyle stuff – but at the cost of some powder float and stability at speed.
Vs the others you mentioned:
Nitro Team: Standard a little more forgiving than the Team. Ease of turns a little easier on the Standard but in terms of overall carving performance I would give it to Team. Team a touch more stable at higher speeds, but not much in it (this is assuming you mean the Camber Team, since you didn’t mention gullwing).
Burton Process: Process a touch more forgiving than Standard in some ways. The Camber profile can feel a little more catchy, but the softer flex of the Process counteracts that. Overall pretty similar when it comes to both ease of turns and overall carving performance. Standard more stable at speed, in my experience.
Salomon Assassin: Really similar in terms of forgiveness – couldn’t choose. Really similar in terms of ease of turns as well. Overall carving, just a shade better on Standard, but again really close. Standard a little more stable at speeds, in my experience.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the quick reply.
Yes, I meant the Camber Team as I’ve tried gull wing profiled boards and wasn’t really enthusiast about that (especially when put into steep terrain).
To be more precise since I use metric system, I am 185cm tall (6,08 ft), 81 kgs (178 lbs in average) and I have Ride Anchors size 11 (love them). I usually bring a small rucksack with me with few things and some water. I already know that my “tabular” snowboard length is around 160, but I am pretty uncertain with this board.
Stated simply, what would you choose?
Thanks Again.
Hi Marco
If it was me with your specs, I would go 156 for the Standard because I personally like to err a little smaller – and the main reason for that is that I like to ride a lot of trees and I like to do flat land tricks and sidehits and butters etc a lot when I ride – versus a lot of speed. I do like to ride fast too – and the 156 wouldn’t be too unstable – and still decent enough in powder at your weight. But if I was to own the Standard as my one board quiver, I would be using it more often for trees/freestyle than I would be for high speed and powder. So, I would err smaller. However, if I was to get this board and be using it mostly for riding fast, on a bigger mountain and in powder when I got it – and wasn’t doing a lot of trees or freestyle, then I’d opt for the 159 for sure.
So I think it depends on how you see yourself riding most of the time. You’re a little taller than me and with bigger boots, basically the same weight, so I’d be more likely to lean 159 if I was you than I am with my smaller feet (US10 or sometimes 9.5).
Thanks Nate. Precious Information. I am quite sure I’ll go 159 since I am really not a lot into trees riding and freestyle, not yet at least.
Basing on your analysis, I got that 159 is a more “all-mountainish” choice for me. I spend about 70% of the time on groomers with firm/hard snow, so I’ll invest a little in maneuverability to get a little extra of stability at speed.
Have a good one and thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome Marco. I think that’s sound reasoning. Hope it treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate!
I’ve tried out the Standard on some Italian Alps hard snow. This board basically EATS groomers. I found myself riding faster than other good snowboarders without knowing why. Also felt great on the short powdery traits I’ve come across and for the limited buttering I am capable of.
Size-wise, 159 is my board. The generous tip and tail width wasn’t too hard to handle. I felt it sufficiently playful and very stable a board, also on moguls. (Haven’t tried 156 but I basically found 159 the right decision for me and for the context I’ve been trying it into).
Didn’t feel too stiff and aggressive overall… I think the reduced camber length has a role in that.
Thanks again for your precious information.
Hi Marco
Glad to hear you’re enjoying the board. And thanks for your update and insights. Very much appreciated.
Hi Nate,
Really great info on the site. Appreciate all your work. I’m caught between a few options and hoping you may have some advice. I’m deciding between
Yes Standard
Yes Typo
Terrain Wrecker
Yes Basic
I’m in an intermediate rider – mostly groomers, a little powder. I like a mixed bag of things. Some speed (but not bombing down), carving (but not deep yet), being quick edge to edge and keen to learn some buttering in the future. The board would need to handle some hard/potentially icy snow.
I’m 6’2, 185lbs and in size 11.5US ThirtyTwo Lashed Double Boas with Union Force bindings.
Thanks.
Forgot to mention this would be my first non-rental board (previously rented Endeavour Ranger, Lib Tech Cold Brew, Jones Frontier)
And any advice around board sizes would be great. Thank you again.
Hi Phil
Thanks for your messages.
Please see my reply on the YES Typo review.
In addition to that, as you hadn’t mentioned the Standard, the Standard could work too. It’s more of a step up and not quite as nimble in terms of quick edge-to-edge. It’s not slow edge to edge either, IMO, but just takes a little more effort to get it moving quickly between edges vs the Typo and TW. Size-wise, I’d be leaning 159 for the Standard for you. The 156 would be doable too. It’s quite a wide board, so the 156 should be wide enough. Going down to the 156 would give you more maneuverability but at the expense of some powder float and stability at speed. I really like the 156 and I’m similar specs (6’0″, 180lbs, size 10 (sometimes 9.5) boots). But your bigger feet are what makes me lean more towards 159 for you. If I had 11.5s, I would be more inclined to ride the 159.
YES Basic probably not. Partly because you mention powder and speed. You’d be taking a drop in powder and speed from the likes of the Typo and TW. It’s really quick edge-to-edge but I think you sacrifice too much else where, for how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
First of all I want to thank you for all the great content you’re putting out there, I’ve learned a lot from your page.
And now here’s my dilemma:
I currently own a Yes Typo which I guess helped me get to a solid intermediate – love the board.
But now I’m looking for something to progress even further with.
I’ve narrowed it down to Yes Standard, Yes Greats and GNU Riders Choice C2X.
My riding style is somewhat playful with the occasional pow chasing and slope bombing.
I guess, I like doing a bit of everything – lately even more on the freeride side.
What would be your recommendation?
Cheers,
Marius
Hi Marius
Thanks for your message.
I would go with the Standard, based on what you’re describing. It’s better than the Greats and Rider’s Choice in powder, IMO, and a little more freeride leaning. It’s still on the more freestyle end of the all-mountain spectrum, IMO, but less so than the Greats and Rider’s Choice.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks for the amazing reviews! Going with a Yes board because they’re good in icy conditions according to your reviews. Torn between Typo and Standard. Is there a big difference between the two? I’m a high beginner/low intermediate rider. Only groomers for now. Want to try to learn ground tricks, side hits this season. 5’4, 140lbs, Size 8 boots.
Hi Van
Thanks for your message.
I would go Typo for what you’re describing. It’s a really good board for high beginner/low intermediate looking to progress, IMO and will be easier to learn ground tricks & side hits too. Typo a really good option for what you’re describing, IMO. Size-wise, the 149 should be spot on, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Getting back on the board after 12+ years. Stopped riding in 2010 due to baseball neck injury which was a huge bummer .
Was skiing/riding since i was 6. Now 41yrs and wouldnt you know it my 5 year old asked for a snowboard for christmas out of the blue so got him a setup.
He’s been taking lessons at small local mountain and I need to get back out there to ride with him.
Kept last board i own and luckily found it in storage.
2006 Option Joni Makinen 158cm – all mountain/freestyle board, i dont think option is in business anymore
im 5’10” and now 210lbs, 10.5-11 boot
Id say i was intermediate +/advanced back in the day. Was moving from straight park to more all Mountain/freestyle before I had to stop.
Friends who still ride recommended YES typo/standard and never summer, i think he has NS harpoon. They ride northeast but do big mountain out west couple times a year. Im not there yet.
Loved the Option, made you work for it, definitely not beginner board, blast to ride.
With board being 17yrs old, me being 41yrs old now with two kids, any recommendations on board that 1) is playful enough i can go out with the boys, and 2) can rip it up in Northeast with adults when/if i get somewhat back to where i was.
Looking for board that i can ease into but if/when i get back to close to where i was, i wont be looking to upgrade right away. Not super technical but won’t be holding me back if i want to get after it.
Was thinking Yes standard…..
Will be riding local, MA/NH/Maine to start. So icy/hard conditions are a factor.
love your site and any advice is appreciated !
Mike
Hey Mike
Thanks for your message.
YES Standard would work really well for you, IMO. It’s a really good all-rounder and is pretty much exactly what you’re describing – something that’s not too technical or difficult to ride, something you can still ride slow and it not feel like a tank or like it needs some speed under it to hum, but can get more aggressive and ride fast etc, when you need it to. Doesn’t hurt that, in my experience, it’s really good in icy conditions as well.
I think for what you’re describing that the Typo would feel a little too playful for what you’re looking for. When riding with your kids I think you’d really like it. And slower speeds, playing around, but wouldn’t be as good as Standard for when you’re looking to ride it a bit harder. I think the Standard would be a really good balance between the factors you’re looking for.
Size-wise, I think the 159 would be a good size for you. I would put your “standard all-mountain size” closer to 161/162, but with the Standard being wider than typical, I would size down to the 159 – I think it would be just right for your specs and what you’re describing. I think with width and length combined the 162 would be too big. The 156 a little small for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply and great advice. Was torn between 159 and 162, forgot about the width of these boards. Just based on how i ride i agree the 159 is best choice.
Thanks for the advice.
Love the site. Definitely awesome resource for getting back on the mountain after so long.
Appreciate it.
Mike
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope it treats you well and hope you have an awesome season!
Nate,
Any recommendation on bindings for the 159 Standard?
Thanks
Mike
Hi Mike
I would go with something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range.
If you want to get a little more in terms of carving and speed, then I’d be erring towards something on this list.
If you wanted to go a little softer/more mellow, then something around 6/10 flex from this list is a good bet and still a good flex match to the Standard.
Hi Nate,
How can you compare this board to Ride algorithm?
Pop and dampness
Greetings Rob
Hey Rob
The Algorhythm is, unfortunately, a board that has eluded me so far, so I haven’t had a chance to test it, so unable to compared them, unfortunately.
Hey Nate,
I really like your great review of the YES Standard and because of your review I’ve decided to go with the YES Standard as my next board.
I’m unsure which size is the right for me. I’m 5’11 (180cm), my weight is around 150-155lbs and my shoe size is US11-12 (EU45) depending on brand.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts and suggestion!
Cheers,
Sebi
Hi Sebi
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 is a good bet for your specs. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156/157 and with your boot size, you don’t really need to size down for this board, so you should be good with the 156. The 153 is a possibility too, but I would only go for that if you were in a US11. If it’s an 11.5 or 12, then I’d go 156 for sure. And I think that’s the most natural length for your specs too – assuming a relatively advanced level of riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for this amazing site. I’ve spent too many hours diving into all the reviews, and finally I’ve landed on the YES Standard. I’m now in between two sizes, 156 and 159. My specs are similar to yours: I’m 6″ and weigh 180 lbs, but I have a larger boot size of 11.5. My skill level is intermediate and my style is all-mountain – typically riding groomers in semi-high speeds to keep up with my skier friends. I do also enjoy the occasional small features in the park and would like to progress there. Love pow but it’s almost never available where I ride. I’ve been riding an old 159W full camber board, but want something a bit more nimble and playful that will facilitate in progressing my riding to quick 180s on side hits, butters like nose rolls etc, which is why I’m considering sizing down a bit. Do you think the 156 will be able to handle speed and carves on groomers with enough stability in my case? I like the idea of a more playful board, but don’t want to sacrifice too much on stability either. I’m not worried about the width, as the YES Standard has the same stance width as my current 159W. Would really appreciate your advice on this one.
Hi Markus
Thanks for your message.
Given your boot size, I think the 159 is the more pure size for your specs. With 11.5s not as much need to size down for this board. That said, I think the 156 would be wide enough for your boots, so it’s a possibility. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 159/160, so again, the 159 the more pure length for you. But the 156 wouldn’t be sizing down a huge amount – and when it comes to stability at speed, you should feel that the same as what I did, even with bigger feet. So, whilst it’s never going to be an out and out bomber, I did find it stable at speed. Now I’m not someone who looks to break the land speed record when I ride or anything. I’m not riding like 60mph or anything when I’m testing these boards, but I do make sure to get up to around 45mph when speed testing, conditions permitting, and this board is stable enough at those speeds for me.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply. Based on your comments, I ended up ordering the 159 🙂
You’re very welcome Markus. Hope it treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hey Nate, awesome reviews man! I think I’ve narrowed my search for a new board down to the yes standard after scouring this amazing site. Now I need help with sizing. I scrolled through all the comments and can’t decide. I’m 6’3″, 215-220, with size 11 burton photon boots. I’d say I’m at the beginning of intermediate level 6, trying to get better and more comfortable in the park hitting small jumps, 50/50’s and 180’s are coming along nicely, and am getting really enjoying buttering and ground tricks. I’m coming from a Salomon Craft 158 only board, and can’t decide between the 159 or 162 Yes Standard? I ride mostly midwest, so lots of Ice and hard pack but I take a trip out west every year and love powder and tree runs. Will the 162 be tougher to progress with park, buttering, 360’s and what not for when I’m riding most of the time? I know I’m above the weight range of the 159 but the length seems more comfortable to me, not sure if 3 cm even makes that much of a difference so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Kolton
Thanks for your message.
In my experience 3cm can make a significant difference. If all that length was added outside the contact points and the boards were the same width, then I don’t think it would make that much difference, but when it changes the effective edge and the width is also difference, the 2 sizes, in my experience can feel quite different. In this case the 162 has 2.5cm more of effective edge, so that’s quite a lot of difference to effective edge. And on top of that you not only go longer but also wider – in this case by quite a bit.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 164, but given how you describe your style, I would certainly size down from that. And then I would also size down for the fact that this board is wide in the 159 and 162, even for 11s. So both are certainly within range. If you’re style of riding was more predominantly bombing and powder, I would say go 162. But in this case, given your style, I would be leaning 159. The 162 still wouldn’t be wrong, but my instinct says 159 for you for this board, given what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! Just the assurance I needed, ordered the 159!
You’re very welcome Kolton. Hope it treats you well and that you have an awesome season! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate. What size would you recommend me on Yes Standard. I am 75kg with size 9 boots. Inrermediate level. I’ll use this mainly on groomers since we dont get a lot of pow in our area. What bindings would you recommend as well for this one?
Thank you.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
Could you also let me know your height. Whilst weight and boot size are more important than height for sizing, IMO, I still like to take height into account, because it does have a leverage value.
Im 5ft 7. Sorry didnt put the complete info.
Thank you for the fast response.
Appreciate you big time.
Hi Mark
For the Standard for you, I would go 153. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 156/157, but with this board being wider than usual, with size 9s I would size down a little. I think the 153 would be just right.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Your site is a great resource and lots of fun for daydreaming.
I’m thinking about getting a Standard. But I’m curious about the Arbor Satori. I know it’s a very different board. Any chance you’re going to review it soon?
I’m 44, in the PNW, and learned on camber in the early 90’s. I mostly ride with my kids on groomers and get out maybe 10 days a season. I don’t ride switch, I like to carve.
My Burton Flight Attendant is too much board for me. I want something I can ride slow and easy when I need to, something I can get sloppy on when I’m tired. It needs to handle crappy conditions at the end of a busy Saturday on Mt. Hood and hold an edge in hard PNW snow-ment. But also make me smile when I want to lay down some nice turns. And I’d like it to pass muster in powder.
170lbs. US men’s 9 boot.
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow reply, have been super busy last couple of days.
I think the Standard would be a really good fit for what you’re describing. We haven’t tested the Arbor Satori yet, hopefully get a chance to this winter. On paper it looks like it could work. It certainly looks softer flexing than the FA – softer than the Standard too. It’s more directional than the Standard, but given you’re not really riding switch, that shouldn’t be a concern and will help it in powder. Given it’s all camber, there’s no rocker to help in in powder, but the directional shape and taper will help – and it sounds like it’s got some 3D shaping (what Arbor call uprise fenders) which will also help. So it should be at least above average in powder, based on specs.
Hope this helps
Hi! I read about half of all the reviews and then thought I would try to ask for some advice before I read more.
I want a snowboard that is good in off pist when I get the chance to ride some, but not so stiff that it I can’t do butters well, I love to play like that and want to be able to ollie/jump over a rope too if I feel like it. Since it’s not snowing every day and I’ve got kids now I would say that is equal as important as a really good offpist board. I don’t have money enough for both skis and two snowboards (and equipment for the kids) so I need one snowboard for everything.
I grew up with skiing (started when I was 5), then switched to snowboarding when I was fourteen and did a couple of seasons in my twenties snowboarding day in and out for months I France and Canada, mainly offpist but later in spring more or less only in the park, I could jump all the big jumps I wanted when I was in my twenties, never any good with spinning though, and now I’m a little too scared so I won’t jump the biggest jumps anymore (and 15 years later the biggest jumps are also quite a lot bigger..) Now I haven’t been snowboarding for some years and it’s time (and I have the opportunity) to pick it up again! but more like a couple of weeks / year maybe 4 in total, not 3-4 months like before. One of my favourite brands way back was Sapient, I remember I had a board from them that was really good for both ollies, butters and offpist, but they are out of business since long ago.
I’m 173 cm tall and weight about 67 kg and I’m 37 yrs old.
Best regards (from Sweden)
Bertil
Hey Bertil
Thanks for your message.
Based on what you’re describing, I think the Standard could work. It’s something you can certainly ollie and butter with and it’s a decent board off piste as well. It’s not the poppiest board out there, but it’s got reasonable pop. Size-wise I would put your “all-mountain” length at around 154. For the Standard I would look at either the 153 or 151, depending on boot size. If you could let me know your boot size that would be great.
Quite a few options for what you’re describing, but some other notable ones include:
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Bataleon Goliath Plus
– Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker
– Slash Brainstorm
If you were interested in any of those and looking for sizing opinions, I’m happy to give mine but would just need your boot size.
You could also go more directional with something like a mellow freeride board, which would gain in terms of off piste, but lose in terms of buttering.
Hope this helps
First of all, thank you BOTH for this amazing website and for taking your time to reply! I bought the yes standard 🙂 found a nice deal and just went for it. When I was waiting to get my parcel I was jumping up and down 🙂 it was a long time since I was that excited 🙂
Can I use the drop back feature on the Yes Standard with Burton Malavita?
Which boots would you recommend with the Yes Standard and the Malavita bindings?
Bought Malavita in medium and Cartel in small at the same time as I ordered the YEs Standard (Cartel in small since Malavita was not available in small).
Went to Burtons flagship store in Sthlm today, measured my feet and tried the Photon boots for fifteen minutes as well as the Ion Boa and tried them on medium and small bindings.
My left foot is 25,5 cm, my right foot is 25 cm.
Tried the boots in a medium and in a small Malavita binding, I can use a medium binding but it’s not optimal.
Burtons small bindings suits my boot size better.
So if someone out there is like me, walking around with a couple of 25-26 cm feet thinking they’re almost in between small and medium, you’re not, go for Burtons small bindings 🙂
So now I think I will return or sell the bindings I ordered (and got) when I bought the Yes Standard. Feels like I rather want the Malavita binding in small then in medium and somehow I think I rather want the Malavita then the Cartel.
Last but not least lesson learned today was that trying boots were a bit of shock. In the last couple of years I’ve got used to only wear vivo barefoot and Joe Nimble shoes (both sneakers and boots), in short both brands make shoes with plenty of space for the toes, wider in front then even most wide sneakers and super soft, you can easily roll the shoe into a ball.
I had my last snowboard boots for quite a while so I had been snowboarding two seasons (2*90-100 days plus a couple of weeks for some years to follow) AND I also think todays boots are much stiffer then boots 10-15 yrs ago…
Now I feel a little bit overwhelmed, especially if I’m to walk around in every pair of boots for fifteen minutes before I try the next pair… quite time consuming with all the brands and models out there! Please help!
🙂
(Bought a 153 cm Yes Standard, felt right since my old board is 153 and I really liked that one).
Hi Bertil
Firstly, I would have gone 151, given your boot size. The Standard is a wider than normal board and likely wider than your previous 153, so sizing down a little would have made sense. That said, the 153 is still doable, just on the bigger side for you when you take into account length and width.
Good to know re small and medium burton bindings when you’re on the cuff like that. With 9.5 to 10 boots (depending on brand) I don’t get the chance to try small bindings, so that’s great information. Can you let me know, was that using Burton boots?
Snowboard boots will always feel stiffer brand new and they will soften up over time. They won’t keep their flex as long as hard ski boots, for example. After breaking in they will feel softer and more molded to your feet. That said, not all brands agree with all feet. Sometimes it’s a case of trying some different brands, as some will be more compatible with your particularly foot/ankle type than others. The Photon are a good flex match for the Standard/Malavita combo. The Ion would work but are a little stiffer and not as good a match, IMO, and it sounds like your preference is to not go that stiff. Also note that even though the aim of Mondo is to match your foot length, it’s not always the case. In fact in most cases I find you’ve got to go above your mondo. For me, I have a mondo of 27.3cm left foot and 27.0cm on my right foot. So based on Mondo I should be 9.5 every time, but very few brands work in a 9.5 for me. I usually have to go to a 10. So if you were only trying on 7.5s, then it would be worth trying on 8s as well. Did they measure your feet for width as well? If it’s the case that you have wide feet, then going with a wide model or a brand that tends to have a wider toe box might be a good way to go.
Some more on boot fitting:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Wide Snowboard Boots for Wide Feet
Oh, and yes, you can use the slam back inserts on the Standard with the Malavitas.
Hi Nate!
Thank you once again for all of your feedback!
Hope I’ll like the Yes Standard even though I bought the 153 🙂 great to know that I will be able to use the slam backs with Malavita. Looking forward to test all of it! We had some snow today, soon our local hill will open up hopefully.
Malavita:
Now I’ve ordered Malavita in small. Burton had a deal on Malavita in small on their swedish website , they were grey in color (last item on their website) so I guess that’s last seasons Malavita binding. On their website I got the impression that the only difference between last season and this season Malavita is the colour.
Can’t reply on your comment so I reply on this one instead to answer your question.
Reply to your question:
Yes, we tried two Malavita bindings in small and medium and only with Burton boots since I was in a Burton flagship store (would have been interesting to try different brands): with the Malavita s and m bindings we tried the Ion boa and the Photon model, both in size 8. I first tried a 7,5 Photon, but I felt directly that I almost had to curl my left big toe in it “to fit”. I couldn’t see how it would be a good fit even if we used an owen to heat that boot up.
Malavita Bindings small / medium:
I could use a medium binding with both boots in size 8 since there’s so many options with moving the straps using a screwdriver, but I didn’t have so much options for adjustability with the medium binding, it was only on “hole” that worked for the front strap (to get it fit perfectly on the boot) when we moved that one to different positions, and then I had about 1 cm left on both the straps when had the boots really tight in the bindings (I almost had to push the straps to the bottom).
Boots:
I guess I’m looking for something that is quite stiff, but still have great dorsiflexion, so that I can squat somewhat normal (and not only like was in a squat smith machine). Comfy goes without saying 🙂 maybe I’m looking something a little bit wider.
Burton boots:
One thing I found interesting with the Ion Boa is that although it is a lot stiffer in many ways, it felt like it was much easier to dorsiflex (dorsal flexion) in the Ion Boa compared to the Photon.
This is something I find quite important since it’s simple biomechanics that you need to be able to have good dorsiflexion to be able to squat. So from that perspective I would say Ion was better actually. But it was really tight around my ankle.. 🙁
I haven’t measured how wide my feet are, good idea!
That dorsiflexion “bonus” didn’t come straight away though I had to wear them for 15 minutes and I also did some “weird” stuff pretending I was snowboarding in the shop, jumping , jumping around on my toes, standing on one leg jumping etc first. Then I had one 15 min warm Photon on my left leg and another 15 min warm Ion Boa on my right.
My guess is that the difference would increase over time wearing them.
Once again thank you for everything!
Hi Bertel
Thanks for that. Good to know that a Burton 8 fits best in a small Burton binding versus a medium.
Yeah last year’s Malavita is identical to this year’s as far as I know, apart from the colorways.
Once they start breaking in that flexion will become easier in any boot – but yeah if it started out easier in the Ion for you, then it’s likely that it would be better for that dorsiflexion in the long run too. Note as well that you can speed up the break in process with heat molding the liner. It’s not going to make the boot feel fully broken in the first day you ride it or anything, but it will mean you’ll get to that point quicker. That said, if you can I would try on some other brands before committing as they might feel better. If the Ion was really tight around your ankle there’s a good chance that with heat molding and after riding for a while that would come right, especially if it was just tightness and no specific pressure points in any one place on your ankle. But no guarantees and ideally you would want to try a few different brands to see which fits best, if you can.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the information provided, it really is a deep rabbit hole to fall into haha. As most people on here I am currently looking to buy a new setup.
Riding style: I would say mostly All-Mountain with some free riding (so fast grooming, tree runs, side hits), not a lot of buttering and park
Me: 5’11”, 155 lbs
Narrowed it down to the Capita Mercury 155 and the YES. Standard 153, which both seem great and I can probably get them for similar money. Given your reviews here I assume you would agree that either one should fit my needs, right?
I am struggling a bit more with selecting bindings, current favorites are Union Atlas, Falcor or Strata – leaning a bit towards the Strata since they are quite a bit cheaper, but I don’t know if they are a bit too soft for my riding style (or if I would even notice), so any help would be appreciated!
Cheers
Hi Jona
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, both would certainly be suitable for what you’re describing. I would personally be leaning a little to the Standard, mainly because I prefer it in the trees – at least in the trees when there’s no fresh snow.
Size-wise those are probably suitable, but if you could let me know your boot size to confirm.
In terms of bindings, the Strata are a flex match for both boards, IMO, but the Atlas/Falcor probably a better match for the Mercury in particular. Given your style, I’d say probably Atlas or Falcor just to drive the board a little harder than the Strata can. But that said, the Strata would work well with both boards.
Hope this helps
Great, thanks for the fast reply! Boot size is US9/9.5.
I am leaning Standard + Falcor – read reviews from a couple of people praising the good on-board feel of the Falcor and it seems to be right in between the Strata and Atlas in terms of stiffness, so that should be perfect.
Hi Jona
For the Standard I think the 153 would be just right. If you did go Mercury, then 155 would be best too, IMO.
The Standard/Falcor would be a really good combo, IMO. And yeah Falcor really good board feel. A couple of things to note:
1. I felt the Falcor a little stiffer than the Atlas. I felt the Atlas at 7/10, Strata at 6/10 and Falcor at 7.5/10. But Falcor and Atlas very close. Atlas not as stiff as rated, IMO.
2. The Standard has “slam back inserts” which is an extra set of holes just behind the main insert pack. They’re 4cm back from the insert pack, which means unfortunately you wouldn’t be able to use those holes with the Falcor. If you don’t think you’d use those holes (main purpose is so you can setback further if you want to move your bindings back on a powder day for extra float), then it’s no issue, but if you think you’d use them, then unfortunately the mini-disc won’t do it. Same goes for the Strata, which also uses a mini-disc. The Atlas uses Union’s Universal Disc, which will work on those slam backs.
Thanks again, really appreciate it! Standard + Falcor/Atlas it is and then I will just decide based on what kind of deal I get.
You’re very welcome Jona. Hope you’re new setup treats you well and you have an awesome season!
Hello!
Do you know is there any difference using union bindings with mini discs or normal discs?
Witch Union binding do you feel will work good for allmountain riding for the standard board?
Hi Marko
Thanks for your message.
Union bindings that use the mini-disc tend to have better board feel. There’s less dead spot under your foot, so you can feel the flex of the board more easily. Some really like this, myself included, and typically if you’re doing more freestyle stuff it’s a feeling you’ll like. If you don’t really ride much freestyle and want a more solid connection with the board, then using one of their universal disc bindings is a good idea. The best matches to the Standard with a mini-disc are the Strata and Falcor, which one would work better for you would depend on your riding style. If you went with a universal disc option, then the Force or the Atlas would be your best bets, IMO.
The one thing to keep in mind when it comes to the Standard is that the Standard has an extra set of inserts behind the main insert packs (which they call slambacks). These allow you to increase your setback. However, with the mini-disc you can’t use these slambacks – as the disc isn’t wide enough to straddle between the main insert pack and the slamback inserts. If you think you’d make use of the slambacks on the Standard, then you’d need to go with a universal disc binding.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot! Very good advice! Helped 🙏🏻
You’re very welcome Marko. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I have been looking for a new board for this season and have been debating between the Nitro Team Gullwing, YES Standard and the Jones Mountain Twin. All these boards seem like a perfect fit for my style of riding where I like to try out everything the mountain has to offer. What would you say the differences are between the 3 and what would you recommend (I’m guessing you would say the Standard since it is your top choice)?
My main question here is if I were to get the Standard what size would I get as a 5’6 145lb rider with 9.5 size boots? The two boards I have were 150 and was wondering if that is the right size for me.
Thank You so much for this page. So much information in such a nice concise format. I love reading every review even when I’m not looking for a board.
Hi Terron
Thanks for your message.
Definitely not a wrong choice between them, so it could come down to sizing.
Some differences to consider:
– The Team Gullwing is just a little looser in feel vs the other 2. But it’s very subtly so, it’s nothing super loose or anything.
– The Standard has the best icy edge-hold of the 3, IMO, but the other 2 are still good in hard/icy conditions
– They’re all very similar in terms of flex and in terms of powder performance and carving and turning
– Also quite similar in terms of jumps and butters, jibbing etc.
– The Standard a little better for riding switch, but with something like the Mountain Twin you could center it up and it would be almost as good – probably not a difference you’d necessarily even notice, if you centered it up
So yeah, more similar than they are different.
Size-wise, I would put your “all-mountain length” at around 152cm.
The Standard is a little wider than you’d think based on waist width, but I think the 151 would still work size-wise, though the 149 would be a possibility as well. Between those 2 sizes, it would depend if you wanted to get a little more in terms of float in powder and stability at speed (go 151) or a little more maneuverability and ease of buttering, jibbing etc (go 149).
For the Mountain Twin, the 151 would be your best bet, IMO.
For the Team Gullwing, the 152. Even though it’s not that much narrower at the waist, it’s narrower at the inserts than either the 149 (or 151) Standard or 151 Mountain Twin. It should still be wide enough, but that’s the only borderline too narrow option, IMO. If you’re riding with like +15/-15 binding angles or similar and.or low profile boots, you shouldn’t have any issues. But if you had bulky boots and a flat back binding angle, then it could be pushing it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great work you do with this website. Such a wealth of information.
I’m quite conviced that I want to buy the YES standard as my next board (despite the fsct that thegoodride’s review isn’t very positieve, everyone else seems to like the board a lot. Just want to check in sizing with you. I’m 189cm tall (6″2 I believe) and 80kg. Boot size EU 43 (US10). Which size board would go well with this? I have a 162 now but wonder if I could step it down one size to make it a bit more playfull.
In addition, I do have burton imperiaal boots which are still in really good condition. Would they be alright to use with this board? And any advice on which bindings would go well with this combination?
Thanks in advance.
Niels
Hi Niels
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be your best bet. I would put you at around a 161 as your “standard length”, so at 162 with a regular width board, I think is probably a good size for you with your current board, but for the Standard I would size down. The 162 in the Standard would be too big, IMO. The 159 will still be wide for your boot size so sizing down to the 159 is your best bet, IMO.
The Imperials should match well with the Standard, IMO.
In terms of bindings, I would look at something around 6/10 to 7/10 flex. Something from one of the following is a good place to start.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks Nate! I guess the binding will be the union strata then.
One question about the union strata if you don’t mind. I can pick up a pair for €200,- which seems a good price. I think this is the 2022 model (it has a lot of small holes in the high back). Would you buy this one in favour of the 2023 model (€250)? I think I read in your review that they downgraded the hardware on these bindings a bit to make them more affordable. So, that would make the 2022 model better AND cheaper in this case won’t it?
Hi Niels
Yeah, if you can get the 2022 model for cheaper, I’d go with that, assuming they have the right size for you. The 2023 model wasn’t a big downgrade – the big price drop was mostly just where the Strata ended fitting in Union’s pricing Heirachy, but all the same, if you can get the better hardware on the 2022 model and it’s the same price or cheaper, then well worth doing.
Thanks Nate. Can’t wait to go try this setup out 🙂
You’re very welcome Niels. Hope your new setup treats you well and that you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate!! Thanks again for all your extensive research. After spending several hours on your site I have decided to go with the Yes. Standard, purchased from evo.com if course, for my next board.
I’m 5’9″ 145 lbs and wear a size 10 vans verse boot which seems to run on the smaller side considering all of my shoes are size 9.5.
I can’t decide between the 151 or 154. I mostly do very technical tree runs and steep chutes. I’m worried about toe overhang on the 151 but also concerned that being on the low end of the weight limit of the 154 will make the board more sluggish and difficult to turn in tight tree runs.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call between the 153 and 151 for you. The 151 might be wide enough though. It’s wider at the inserts than the waist width suggests. With around a 21″ stance, you’d be looking at around a 260mm width at inserts. With a 22″ stance, it would be more like 263mm. Which is a range that’s typically good for 10s, IMO, but can be borderline depending on binding angles and profile of boots. The Vans Verse’s that I’ve measured have been around 3cm longer than mondo on the outersole (so 31cm for a 10). So you would be looking at a 5cm total overhang (or 2.5cm (1″) per edge, assuming perfect boot centering) with a 0 degree back binding angle (assuming a 21″ stance width – with a wider stance, there would be less overhang). This is doable for a lot of riders, but if you’re laying down bigger carves, it’s pushing it. I’ve had no problems with deeper carves (I’m not eurocarving or anything though) with this kind of width, but I typically run +15/-15 binding angles and that angle does make quite a bit of difference. So depending on binding angles and how deep you carve, the 151 could be doable width-wise.
The 153 shouldn’t be overly big for you though. For your specs, I would typically put you at a around a 153/154, so it’s right there. Whilst you could argue it’s on the slightly wide side for your feet, it’s not super wide, so overall, I think it’s a size that shouldn’t feel too big. If you want that extra maneuverability the 151 would give a bit more in that sense, but it’s up to whether you think it’s too risky boot drag-wise.
Hey:) I have a Standard in the 151, 135lbs size 9.5 boot. Got a great deal on some 2018 Malavitas although I’ve heard those are a bit too soft maybe for this board. Getting new boots and Do you think K2 Ender’s with the Malavitas for this board would be a good match? I ride PNW mix of heavy snow, groomers, and deep powder.. Bombing groomers, side hits a plenty, trees, carving like a maniac:) Thanks.. your reviews are always great!
Hi Spaceship
Thanks for your message.
I think the Malavita work fine with the Standard. Maybe marginally softer than ideal, but still a match, IMO. The Ender are a good flex match, IMO, to that setup and should work for your style of riding too. You could also go a little stiffer, if you wanted to, but they should work well. I would say a boot with a 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be your best bet. The Ender, to me, is a 6/10 flex.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, what size Standard do you recommend for 6’2” 200 lbs rider? I wear 10.5 Burton Photon boots. I was thinking about the 159 considering I spend most of my time on piste. Thanks
Greg
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message. I agree that 159 would be your best bet. I’d say your “normal” all-mountain size would be more like 162, but with the width of the Standard being wider than normal for 10.5s, sizing down to the 159 makes the most sense.
Thanks Nate. Could I get away with the 162? Just curious. Thanks
Greg
Ps: love your site. Lots of great information! Keep it up!
Hi Greg
Yeah, I think you could get away with it. But note that it would likely differ a little vs how I felt the 156 Standard. Most likely it would feel a little stiffer than I felt the 156, be a little more stable at speed, a little less maneuverable, float a little better in powder, be a little harder to butter and a bit more effort to pop and spin.
Hi Nate,
I am looking to get a my first snowboarding gear and thanks to your reviews along with other sources, I am set on getting the 2023 Yes Standard as a do-it-all snowboard that’ll last me as long as it possibly can.
I am currently 60kg, 5’9, US8. Would probably put myself on the low end of the intermediate range – I can make turns but still struggle a bit on worn out steeper sections of the trail where there are combinations of ice and powder. I see myself mainly carving on groomers mainly but with the occasional jumps or jibbing.
I am wondering which board size you’d recommend for my case? Based on the specs, I believe either the 149 for 151 would be great for me but I can only get the 151 locally where I live – would that be much of an issue if I did went with the 151? or would you recommend another type of board for my case?
Also, with regards to the bindings, I’m stuck between the Union Strata and the Burton Cartel. Which of the two would you recommend? or perhaps another type of binding?
Many thanks!
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
I think the 149 would be your best bet. I would put your “standard size” at around 151, but with US8 boots, the 151 is a little on the wide side. The 149 would be a great size for you for the Standard, IMO. But the 151 is getting into the just a little too big territory. It would be doable, but not as optimal as the 149, IMO.
If you can’t find the Standard 149, I would also look into the Slash Brainstorm 151 or the Jones Mountain Twin 151. Even though they have similar waist widths to the 151 Standard, they’re not as wide at the inserts. You could also look at the 149 YES Typo. But again, the 151 Standard is doable – it’s not way out of range or anything, just the 149 would be more ideal.
Both the Strata and Cartel would be good matches for any of those boards, IMO and there’s not really a bad choice between them. I would personally go with the Strata. I prefer them a little more. But they’re both really good bindings and both a good match for the boards you’re looking at. Only thing I would caution is that the Strata has quite a long baseplate and the Medium could be a little long for those boards widths. Hard to say for sure without setting them up and you’d probably be OK, but there is some risk there. You may fit in the Small Strata if you have low profile boots, but no guarantees there either. So, based on that the Cartel would be the safer bet. It will fit fine in the Medium and you can probably go either medium or small with 8s. If you have bulkier than normal boots, then I would go Medium with the Cartels.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I just bought a yes standard 153. Do you have any recommendations for what bindings to pair with this board? I ride a lot of park and when i´m not in the park I like to ride the whole mountain as a park kind of. I have a pair of union stratas, but I would like to buy another pair of bindings to use with this board since the minidisc on the stratas dosen´t give much room for stance adjustment, plus I cant use the slam back inserts on pow days. I really like the feeling of the stratas and the simplicity of most union bindings. So i´m thinking either union force or burton Malavita but Im open to other suggestions as well. How similar is the force to strata? Malavita seems nice but I have read on a few forums & reviews that they tend to dent the topsheet of the board sometimes. Have you ever had that problem with your malavitas?
Im 174cm tall 67kg and ride US 8.5 burton Ion boots
Thanks a lot for your help!
Cheers
Hi Mika
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Force are quite different to the Strata. They have a more smooth, even feel to their response versus the Strata, which is a more “explosive/springy” kind of response. Also the board feel of the Force isn’t as good. I would go Malavita in your case, given that you ride a lot of park and ride the mountain like a park. I think you’ll appreciate the better board feel of the Malavita over the Force.
I haven’t had any issues with denting the top sheet with my malavitas. Leaves some marks when you take them off – but all bindings do that in my experience, but no denting that I’ve experienced.
Hope this helps
Hello! I am looking into getting this board and was hoping to get some help with sizing. I am 5’11” and weigh 160 pounds with a shoe size of 11. I am an intermediate rider who has gone snowboarding a decent amount but who has never owned a board before. I mostly stick to groomers but have an interest in doing some tree and park runs. Do you think I should go with the 156 or the 159? I can’t tell if the 156 will be too narrow for my feet.
Hey Mitch
I’d go 156 for sure. 159 in this board too big for you, IMO. And the 156 shouldn’t be too narrow for 11s. The width at the inserts is around 272mm (assuming a roughly 22″ stance width) which is a really good width for 11s, IMO. I mean, if you’re euro carving with bulky boots and zero angle on your back binding or the likes, then it might be too narrow, but otherwise, all good. I think the 156 would be the perfect size for your specs.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much for the response Nate! Thats really helpful. Love your website by the way!
Hey Nate, sorry for the double message. Wanted to actually ask 1 more question. Do you have any suggestions for boots and bindings for this board? I read through your guides but theres a lot of options so wasnt sure if you could help narrow it down.
Hey Mitch
For boots, I would look for something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range. I know that doesn’t narrow it down a whole bunch, but the best fitting option in that flex range would be the way I’d go. If you’re unable to try on for fit, this might be some help.
For bindings, something in the same 6/10 to 7/10 flex range. Look out for things like board feel if you think you want to be trying butters, ollies, jibs etc. Good shock absorption also helps if you’re going to be doing jumps and can help with chatter in more bumpy terrain. The following have really good options for the Standard, IMO. Though I would personally try to not go to 5/10 flex, if you can help (there’s a couple in the first list below that are 5/10 flex.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all your time and energy in writing all these reviews. I could use your expertise in helping me find my next board and I’m considering the Yes Standard. I have been riding a very stiff Ride No.4, fast and aggressively for the last 15 years. I’m looking for a fun daily driver that can be just as fun, just as grippy on groomers or icy snow, but that is also less forgiving than my current stiff board. I’m also at a point where I want to goof around a little, buttering from time to time. I demoed a Lib tech Ejack knife last season and loved it. It was just what I was looking for except that it didn’t have a ton of pop in the park and was slightly on the stiffer end. The Yes Standard seems a bit less stiff. Not having the opportunity to ride, and seeing that you rode and reviewed both of those, which one would you recommend for a daily driver, groomer, ice, some park, some butters, some pow?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Pablo
Thanks for your message. The Standard is certainly a little softer than the Ejack Knife and more suited to park and butters. Not quite as good for powder, but still OK for powder. And not quite as stable at speed or as good on a carve, but still decent in those areas. The Standard, in my experience has really good edge hold in icy conditions, so you would still get that aspect. So I think it could definitely work for you. Another option, given that you liked the Ejack Knife would be to look at something like the Lib Tech TRS (though the biggest weakness there would be in powder) or the GNU RC C3 (again powder being the biggest issue there). But I think the Standard would work well for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Hi ante I got this beauty ,153 (finally) along with a pair of atlas, I’m a hit concerned since I also have a pair of stratas I am not sure with one of them would ahit better.
Regards
Hi IJ
Both the Strata and Atlas would pair with the Standard. If you have an Aviator (looking at your comment from the Aviator post) and the Standard, then I would put the Atlas on the Aviator and the Strata on the Standard.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
You recently offered me some advice on the Yes Typo review where you recommended a 158 size for my 74kg and size 9(UK), 10(US) shoe size.
I’m a low-end intermediate who rides groomers and maybe some powder. No park rides for me.
I’m struggling to find a Typo in the UK, end of season and stock is nill, and Yes, don’t ship directly to the UK.
I can still find a few Yes Standards, but I’m struggling to work out the correct board size for the Standard. Is it 156 or maybe even 153 because of my 74kg weight?
Is the Standard suitable for my level and riding preference? I think it is from reading your excellent review.
Thanks for your help; greatly appreciated.
Hi Spike
The Standard is certainly a step up from the Typo and I would say solid intermediate would be best. It’s doable for low intermediate, but will likely be a little more of a challenge to begin with.
Size-wise, those are the 2 sizes I would be debating between. Because of it’s width, I would certainly go a little smaller than what you would ride the Typo in. And as a low intermediate erring on the shorter side is also advisable. Given that you’re not looking to do any freestyle, I think the 156 is the more pure size for your specs – and it’s still sizing down a bit from what I would consider your “standard all-mountain” size. But as a lower intermediate rider, there is an argument to size down a little more again to the 153.
It’s a tough call. The 156 is a size that would serve you for as long as the board lasted, IMO. The 153 might be something you’d want to upgrade from, when you get to an advanced level of riding.
Some other things that might help with the decision:
– The 156 will give you better stability at speed, be faster in general, and better float in powder
– The 153 will be a little easier to ride, be more maneuverable at slower speeds and better/easier for freestyle stuff (but that’s not a concern from what I understand).
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate — as every thank you for the prompt and quality advice.
It really is an excellent service you provide. Your reviews are very well written and structured, so a big thank you to you.
I’ll go and see what Standards I can find …. otherwise I’ll have to wait for the new season stock to come in.
Thanks again for your help.
Back again 🙂
I was just reading your 1-8+ levels for snowboarding skills …. I would say I’ve completed 5 but not started 6 yet.
Would that still mean that the Standard could be a bit challenging?
Thanks
Hi Spike
If you’re around a level 5, I don’t think you should have any issues riding the Standard.
Hi, looking at buying a standard. Intermediate level. I am 5″7 and weight 140lbs with a size 8.5 salomon launch boa boot. Would you recommend 153 or 151? I believe both will work but which one would be better?
Hi Bobby
I think your the same Bobby I just answered, but yeah, I would be weighing up between the 151 and 149, and think the 153 would be a bit too big. Given that you’re thinking between 151 and 153, I think the 151 is your best bet.
Hi, I am about 172cm 5”7 weight 140lbs with boot size 8.5 Salomon launch boa. I’m looking at the standard yes 153cm . Do you think it will fit ? I’m an intermediate rider who will mostly do regular slopes and not snow park
Hi Bobby
Thanks for your message.
The 153, IMO, is a bit too big for your specs. I would put your “standard all-mountain” size at around 152, but with this board being wide for your boots, I would size down from that. So I would go 151 for the Standard at the longest, and would seriously consider the 149, but the 153 is bigger than ideal, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’ve been rocking the YES Standard for 2-3 seasons now and I bought it to grow into after Burton’s Clash. Although I’ve gained lots of experience and advanced as a rider, I occasionally feel that the Standard feels too stiff or not playful enough. When thinking about a second, more playful and easy going board, what would you recommend to “downshift” into?
I was thinking about the Basic/Typo models but not sure if they would be too similar, any other options are more than welcome as well.
Thank you!
Hi Tuomas
Thanks for your message.
The Basic/Typo are quite different feeling boards, so I wouldn’t say they would be too similar – and both certainly more mellow than the Standard. If you adding the new board to pair with the Standard in a quiver, I would go Basic over Typo, to give you that bigger difference (Basic is softer flexing and more rocker and just more playful overall). If you wanted to go full freestyle with your second board, then I would also look at:
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
Every board there will be more playful than the Standard, IMO. The one that I probably wouldn’t go for is the Jackpot – just because it’s not going to feel a lot more playful. It’s certainly still a different feeling board to the Standard, but in terms of playfulness it’s not going to be that noticeable a difference, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot Nate, I appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Tuomas. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Like almost everyone who leaves a comment here I have to start by saying how much I appreciate the in depth reviews, but also the detailed and personalized responses to each comment.
To start I am 31, 6’3, and float between 185 – 195 lbs with a size 11-11.5 boot. I have a more slender foot and the 11.5 fits my toe a little better usually, but I like the hug of the 11s around my foot. I currently rock Burton Photons in an 11 and had them heat molded to push the toe back a little bit. I would say I am in between intermediate and advanced, with some aspects of my riding being advanced and other still needing to be progressed. I boarded a lot as a teenager and in my 20s I would only go like once or twice a season, but in the last few years have been getting up there as much as possible. I am definitely an all mountain style rider with a lean towards freestyle. I LOVE to hit kickers and on a confident day can pretty much take down any jump on the mountain, and I love to charge hard once or twice a day. I am not a big jibber but hit some easy rails / boxes, but am really trying to work on my switch riding, buttering, carving, and getting more comfy on the smaller park features.
I never really took the time to try and master switch riding until this season and I have started to really enjoy the feeling that comes with total mastery of the board. I am still progressing switch but looking forward to improving my butter tricks / edge control on carves. So, I want a board that can handle the occasional charge and larger features, but I also want something suitable to progressing the switch / butter aspects of my riding that are lacking.
When I started getting serious about the sport again I just went and got a Burton Custom with some light research and it seemed like a good all mountain quiver of one, but after being on it for my second season it doesn’t seem like the fit for me. It’s a 162 and it can really charge down the mountain, rip a carve, and great for landing the big jumps (even saves my knees a bit when I overshoot haha), but it feels labored when I am trying to play around / progress buttering at slow speeds. It is also just a bit unforgiving, I love the launch out of turns, but I feel like I am always having to be on my game (especially switch). I also see a lot of hard snow / icy conditions being in California and only 1 or 2 light powder days a year.
So, I am going to get a new set up at the end of the season and after reading your reviews and a ton of research I landed on the Standard. I am thinking of going with the 156 to have some playfulness, and was hoping the mid-wide flex could still handle the occasional bomb and big feature I throw at it. I wanted to see if you thought that was accurate or if I should go with the 159.
For Bindings I am leaning towards the Strata, the Rome Vice, and the NOW select Pro. I like my Burtons, but I am not a fan of the toe straps, I just can’t seem to get them to lock in how I would like. I am definitely leaning towards the Strata, but I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the set back inserts the Standard has. I don’t see many powder days in California though and was thinking I could always rent when I do. I know you don’t review rome or NOW, but I was wondering if you heard people liking the skate tech or thought they could be a good fit just hearing about preferences.
Thanks for reading such a long comment and I appreciate all the effort you put in!
Take care,
Justin
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would suit what you’re describing well. It’s a bit mellowed out from the Custom for sure, but can still handle some speed. It’s easier to butter too.
Size-wise, I think I would be leaning 159 though. For your specs, I would say something around 162 is your “standard all-mountain” length, but given the aspects you want to focus on, sizing down is certainly an option and with the Standard being a wider board, it makes sense for that reason as well. However, I think sizing down to 159 would be enough. If you wanted it to really be something for focusing on freestyle, the you could certainly ride the 156, but with 11s, the 156 would be a good width for you – rather than being on the wider side. The 159 is on the wider side for 11s, but it’s still in a good range for the 11s. If you were riding 9.5s, 10s that kind of thing, I would give more consideration to the 156, but with 11s, and your height/weight specs, I would be leaning 159.
For reference in terms of width at inserts, on the Custom 162, you probably, depending on your stance width have a width at the inserts of around 267mm. On the Standard 156, it would be around 270mm. On the 159 Standard around 275mm.
For bindings, if you weren’t concerned about not being able to use the slam backs, then I think the Strata would work well. You could still set it back on the regular insert pack, but just not as far back as you can with the slam backs. I haven’t tested the NOW Select, but I have tested a few NOW bindings – for the most part I like them – but I’m not a fan of how their board feel for the likes of butters etc – and given that’s something you want to work on, that would be my only concern with NOW bindings. I haven’t to date tested any Rome bindings.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I appreciate all of the advice, and I actually like the idea of a 159 as well I think I just got a bit weary of the larger size because the core on the 162 Custom felt way heavier then the 158 and stiffer. It almost felt twice as heavy when I picked up someone elses 158 after I got it, and I just want to be sure these sizes don’t have the same jump in heftiness. If that’s not the case then I am definitely open to the 159.
Yeah I was worried about that with the NOW’s so I will probably steer clear, thanks!
I thought I would also add, I have also been re-examining the Yes Greats, and thinking it could be really good for learning some of the things I had just mentioned. When I went back and looked it seemed you mentioned it could handle some speed as well (maybe even 4/5), and I was wondering if you thought that could potentially be a good fit too, and if so what size? 159 as well?
Thanks again Nate!
Also, I saw you ride Falcors on your Greats board and was wondering why you prefer those because they are a bit stiffer – and if you had any other bindings you would recommend.
This is a little random as well, but I was looking at the Goliath and Whatever at first but wrote them off because they seemed to have trouble in hard snow, which I ride most often, but I saw you rode one in a comment and was wondering if you would agree.
Appreciate the time.
Shoot I am the worst, I forgot to mention I wanted the binding recommendations with a slightly canted footbed around 1.5, I think it would help my knees a bit with my wider stance!
Hey Nate,
Sorry to blow you up with comments! You can delete this comment and the Bataleon one as well. I have decided to go with the Yes Greats! It just feels like the exact balance I want with a great switch experience, but I a super stuck between the 156 and 159. I am just worried I will find the 159 has a similar jump in heftiness from the 156 that I experience on the custom from 158 to 162. I can’t find any local ones to play around with either, let me know what ya think!
Appreciate it,
Justin
Hi Justin
Thanks for your messages.
I think the Greats would fit what you’re describing really well. Just note that it’s not as good in powder as the Standard – but it’s not any worse in powder than the Custom. Though if you do end up going 156 in the Greats, then it won’t float in well as powder as the 162 Custom, IMO. But if powder isn’t that important or if you don’t see any deep powder that much, then I think it should work really well.
In terms of sizing – when it comes to the Greats, the 156 is more doable than the Standard 156 for you, IMO. Like the Standard it’s wider, as you know but it’s also got a lot more effective edge versus overall length vs the Standard. Again it’s not super wide since you ride 11s, but I would still size down to 159 even without taking the effective edge into account. When taking the effective edge into account you can ride this board in a shorter size than the Standard if you want to.
I rode the 154 most recently on this board, and it didn’t feel too small at all. It’s a size I could happily ride on this board (I wouldn’t suggest you go as small as the 154 though, with your boot size). I own the 156 and I really like that size too, but I would never go 159 personally – would feel too big for me. I think you could, with your specs, ride the 159, but the 156 is definitely doable – and it seems you’re liking that idea. You would get a little less stability at speed – and certainly versus the Custom 162, there would be a drop there – but I don’t think it would end up being too wobbly or anything.
I ride the Falcor’s on my Greats – it’s a combo I like. I really like carving with the Greats 156. But I do like it with my Malalvita’s too – it doesn’t need stiffer bindings. And if were to ride the 154 I would likely ride it with softer bindings. Also note that my Falcor’s are the 2019 model. The 2022 model got a bit stiffer than previous models, so I’m not sure I would put them on the Greats. If it was between the 2022 Falcor and the Strata, I would go Strata.
I appreciate all the added help! I think I am leaning towards the 156 and I will keep you updated on how it goes!
You’re very welcome Justin. Look forward to hearing how it goes for you.
The fact I had to scroll this far to comment speaks for itself. You’re a cool dude.
I’m currently on my first board a 2009 Riders choice 157.5 which I have been riding for 4 years and it’s time for something new. I guess I’m intermediate now. I was originally set on just getting the new Riders choice but your review on the Standard is starting to change my mind. It seems to check all the boxes so now I’m confused haha. I love trees and small natural hits so I need nimble. It has been difficult to enjoy the pow on my current setup as I start cramping from needing to lean back so much, so something with more float would be nice. I’m not too concerned about speed but I’m looking forward to more stability and better turning. No park for me. Mostly off piste when I can so free ride?
I’m 6 ft 185-190 lbs with 11.5 boots. I was settling on the Standard 159 but I’ve seen you recommend some people size down to the 156. I’m 32 years old and consider myself fairly strong and athletic haha. Not sure if that helps. Or do I stick with riders choice and get the 158W?
Hi Devon
Thanks for your message.
If you went Standard I would actually go 159 in your case. With the same specs and size 10 boots, then yeah, sizing down to 156 would be an option for sure, and I’d be leaning that way for this board. But with 11.5 boots, the 159 is a good width for your boots, so no need to size down (I typically only recommend sizing down with this board for smaller boot sizes).
The Standard, IMO, will give you more on a carve, better stability at speed and be a little better in powder – particularly if you make use of the slam back inserts. In terms of nimbleness, comparing the 159 Standard to 158W RC, I’d say the RC is probably a little more agile, but not heaps in it. Given your riding style, if you wanted to go with something a little more directional twin, then you could also look at the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, if you wanted something similar to the RC, but a little better in powder (though you’d have to size up to the 161W or down to 156W). But I think the Standard fits what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Helpful? Yes and no! Haha. Thanks for replying but now I’m intrigued by the TW. There are too many options. So yea I live for the trees. Unfortunately good powder days are far in between where I live. I’m still leaning toward the standard as you’ve suggested even though I don’t think I’d really utilize the slam back much. It would just be nice to have that option on those rare occasions. I’m hoping any wider modern hybrid board will be better than what I have now, and since I don’t have much experience with other boards I wonder if I’ll notice the subtleties. So with that would you say just get the standard and don’t worry about it, or would you say maybe the TW would be better if it is indeed more nimble, playful, snappy? I also noticed they have different bases does that play much of a factor? Size up or down the TW? And you know it may also just come down to whatever I can get my hands on as stock seems to be diminishing…
Hi Devon
Yeah, I would say TW more nimble and playful, but the Standard certainly isn’t unnimble or unplayful. I don’t think there’s a wrong choice. But the Standard will be more of a different feeling to what you’re used to, given you’re used to riding a 2009 Rider’s Choice. Especially given that back then it was BTX – so basically all rocker – or at least pretty rocker dominant. The new Rider’s Choice is C2X, which has more camber in it than the BTX – and the TW is also C2X. But they still have the rocker between the feet – and having that pivot point between the feet, compared to camber between the feet can be quite a different feeling. Of course that’s not the only difference between them, but it’s definitely a noticeable difference and one that can take a bit of getting used to.
With the TW, my instinct is that you’re going to find the 161W a little too big, particularly because trees are a big part of your riding. So, I would be more inclined to go the 156W – though that feels a little on the small side! But if you’re coming from a 157.5 RC – regular width – then size-wise the 156W is probably actually a slightly bigger feel than that. In terms of surface area, it’s still going to give you a little more, which is good for powder – and being a little more directional than the RC, it’s going to be better for powder in that sense as well. But going 156W smaller will lessen how much better it feels in powder – but I feel like it would be the better balance between keeping things nimble, whilst also giving a bit better powder performance
Almost forgot to tell you I went ahead and sent it and snagged a standard 159. It seemed like I was weirdly in between on the sizing for the TW, plus they’re hard to find in stock. It might take some adjustment going to more of a camber board but I’m excited for the challenge. Just need some more snow this season! Thanks for taking the time to give in depth and thoughtful advice. If you’re interested maybe I’ll share my thoughts when I finally get to ride it.
Hi Devon
Nice! Hope it treats you well. Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Finally got to test out the Standard, and it was awesome! Very happy with the upgrade. First thing I noticed was how light it was compared to my old board. My first camber board and no problem getting the hang of it, though this could just be a more forgiving board too. Less squirrely on the cat tracks, and much better take off and landings on jumps. It was a mixed day with firm ice base and fresh pow on top. The float was so nice. I do think the magnetraction is a little bit better in the ice, but the Standard did ok still. No problem riding switch on the groomers. Had a great time in the trees. I noticed I could get a little bit of snap out of turns which was new for me and fun. Overall amazing and no regrets. Thanks for the review and recommendation.
(also sorry I replied to an earlier post because there wasn’t a visible button on the latest one)
Hi Devon
Thanks for the update. Always great to hear other’s experiences and awesome that it’s treating you so well. Enjoy!
Hi Nate,
I’ve been riding a Lib Tech T. Rice 153 for the last 8-10 years and looking to switch over to one of your top ranked all-mountain boards. Other than the Standard, I’ve been looking at the Typo, Jones MT, and Ride Algorythm, but I’m having a ton of trouble figuring out which is the best fit for me.
I ride a lot of groomers out west but love to hop into the trees and am looking for something that’s easy to maneuver. I’m starting to do a little more park but more so just hit little features around the mountain and ideally would have something that can handle itself pretty well on pow days. Definitely want something stable at speed too but I’m not a crazy aggressive rider either. I feel like the MT is a great fit but I’ve read a ton of reviews about the top layer peeling off and it seems like it’s become a pretty consistent and major problem. Have you heard of experienced anything like that?
Other than that, any lean on any of these options? Thanks so much, really appreciate the help!
IP
Hey IP
Thanks for your message.
I got your other one on the Mountain Twin review as well, but will delete it to keep things tidy as I don’t think there was anything different to your comment here.
I haven’t had any issues with Jones boards topsheets peeling, but I only get them for so long. That said, sometimes I get them after they’ve been ridden a bit – demo models from reps and I haven’t noticed it. I don’t recall anyone mentioning to me either, but I get a lot of comments, so it’s possible someone mentioned it and I can’t remember, but off the top of my head, I haven’t heard of it, so I’m not sure how common it is with the MT. That aside, I think the MT would be a great option for what you’re describing. As would the Standard, so that’s definitely an option too.
I haven’t ridden the Algorythm yet, so I’m not sure about that one.
The Typo would certainly work for what you’re describing and, IMO would be the most manevuerable for the trees – but will be the least in terms of powder. Still OK in powder but not as good as the Standard or MT, IMO. It’s the most playful of the 3, IMO, so if you wanted to go more playful, it’s an option, but it’s not as stable at speed. So, my instinct says the MT and Standard probably better fits, but if you wanted the most maneuverable in trees and the most playful and were happy to sacrifice a little in terms of speed and powder, it’s definitely an option.
Happy to give sizing suggestions for each of those, if you wanted it – would just need your weight and boot size – got your height (5’7″) from your other comment already.
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks Nate (sorry about all the comments), super helpful! 5’7 150 which I’m guessing puts me on the Standard 153 and MT 154 probably right?
I’d say I’m in the trees more than I’m in powder just for being unlucky missing the good storms but definitely looking for decent in both. Am I missing any other top options outside of Standard, Typo, MT for my riding style?
Thanks again for the help!
Hi IP
Got all your messages (deleted the others for tidiness). They just need to be moderated, which I typically just do as I reply. A little slower replying right now because it’s the weekend – and also because I’m on the road doing a bit of ski resort tour.
I would say around 154 in terms of length for your specs, generally speaking as your “standard all-mountain” size. However, given that the Standard is a wider board, I’d look at the 151 – size down a bit to make up for the fact that it would be wide for your boots. As you mentioned in your other post, you picked up the 153 – it’s doable, but on the big side for your specs, IMO, I think the 151 would be the more optimal size.
For the MT, the same thing applies really. All be it not quite as wide as the Standard, it’s still wide for your boots (and the 154 only actually marginally narrower than the Standard at the inserts) – so again, I’d probably be leaning 151, rather than 154. Again, 154 doable, but I’d be leaning 151.
Yeah, the Typo is a little more playful/more freestyle focused board than the other 2, IMO, but it’s not like a park board or anything. It’s a little bit down in terms of powder, but it’s not terrible for powder either. I actually really liked it in the trees – really nice and nimble. Size-wise, I agree with 152 as you mentioned in your other comment, if you were to go with that one.
Thanks a lot, Nate. I ended up swapping out the 153 for the 151 Standard. I checked the SB Database and saw my Lib Tech is actually from 09 lol so I’m pretty excited to get on a new board. Really appreciate the help (and your article about how to figure out what width board is for you).
Best,
IP
You’re very welcome IP. Hope the 151 Standard treats you well! Happy riding
Hi Nate, (fellow Nate here)
Intermediate snowboarder here with 3-4 years experience. I am 5’9,” 175-180lbs, wearing size 9.5 Ride Rooks. I reside in Southern California and expect to ride in June and Mammoth a lot, with a trip planned to Steamboat Springs, CO and Big Sky, MT each. I primarily ride groomers, trees, and enjoy some speed. However I did want to spend more time in the park this year with jumps and rails and keep practicing switch. Big Bear is usually just groomers and park, but mammoth can see pretty good pow and last year steamboat and big sky blessed our trips with plenty.
Last Year I rode an old buddy’s Rome SDS LoFi 155cm. That a women’s board with a 149 waist width that definitely wasn’t meant to handle my weight so powder runs were pretty rough. There was toe drag, but it still carved decent, and I enjoyed the park on it none the less.
I actually just purchased the Yes Standard in 153cm, but am on the fence about exchanging for the 156. My concern with 153 is really about my weight for the board. When I put the Yes Standard 153 up against the old board, it’s (to my inexperienced mind) only a bit wider wider at the nose, tail, and waist. I know it’s unwise to compare the two, but I still worry about my weight on the board being to high for the 153 and just sinking miserably again in powder, but on the flipside I worry that I’ll lose responsiveness and turn initiation on the 156 due to my boot size and not navigate well through trees.
Sorry that was so long, let me know which size you think would be best.
Thank You
Hey Nate
Thanks for the message – and great name!
The Rome Lofi is relatively wide for a women’s board (and really the max length that women’s boards typically come in). So the Standard 153 at the waist isn’t that much wider (249mm on Lofi vs 253mm on Standard), but the overall width is quite a bit more (299mm at the nose/tail versus 293mm at nose and tail). It doesn’t sound (and doesn’t look) like much, but makes quite a big difference to the overall surface area of the board. And, importantly, at the inserts, the 153 Standard would be considerably more. Assuming a fairly moderate 545mm (21.5“) stance width, the 153 is around 265mm at the inserts. And a bit more if you were to have a wider stance width than that. As I’ve never measured a Rome board, I don’t what the Lofi is likely to be at the inserts, but I’d be surprised if it was more than 259mm. So, I’d be very surprised if you got boot drag issues on the 153.
All of that said, I think the 156 is the better size for you in the Standard. The 153 is doable – and it will give you better powder performance than the Lofi, IMO, but I would be leaning 156. I’d put your “standard all-mountain” size at around 159. However, given the width of the 156cm Standard (270mm at inserts assuming that 545mm (21.5″) stance width) is quite wide, sizing down a little makes sense, but I think sizing down to 156 makes more sense than to 153. I really like the 156 and ride either 9.5 or 10 boots (6’0″, 185lbs last time I rode it) – height is the least thing to worry about and your weight is similar – I’m typically between 175lbs and 185lbs and I’d still ride the 156 when I’m 175lbs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate thanks for the great reviews!
I’m trying to decide on a new board. I’m currently riding a 15 year old Burton Canyon in 168W.
I’ve been riding for 20+ years and would say I’m an advanced rider.
I’m 6’2″, 230lb, and US 13 Burton boots. Would the Standard in 162 work well for me?
Also considering the Jones Mountain Twin in 165W. Was also looking at the Lib Tech Travis Rice Pro in 164W or the Skunk Ape in 165W.
Would the Burton Cartels, Cartel X, or Union Atlas or Forces be a good choice for any of those boards? Using Burton Photon boots.
Thanks!
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard could work in the 162 for you. Possible you could see a reduced stability at speed, given the size drop, but I’m not sure what the Canyon was like. The Canyon was before my time testing boards, so I don’t know much about it – and can’t find much either, but what I could find, it sounds like it’s similar to the old Custom. Assuming that translates somewhat to the new custom, then size-for-size, you’re looking at a bit of a drop in terms of stability at speed. That said, it’s an older board and you can afford to size down more these days. Not taking your old board into account, I would say 162, for the Standard, is a good size for your specs.
For the other boards I agree with your sizings on those too. The Mountain Twin would be doable in the 162W, but with 13’s I think the width is a safer bet on the 165W – and length-wide, I’d be leaning that little bit longer too – especially given the board you’re coming from.
In terms of bindings, I would go either Cartel X or Atlas if you went T Rice Pro or Skunk Ape as the Cartel and Force would likely be a little soft for them. Any of those would match the Standard and Mountain Twin but I’d still be leaning Cartel X and Atlas.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome thanks for the reply. Yup the Canyon was the wide version of the Custom back in the day.
I think I’ll go with the Mountain Twin 165w with Cartel Xs. Just for that bit more stability at speed.
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Ben. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I’ve just purchased the YES Standard 2021 board thanks to your great reviews!
I’m now looking to get some bindings for the board and was looking at the NOW X-YES Men’s Snowboard Bindings 2020. I thought they would be compatible with the YES Standard board. I have seen some that were £250 but now half price now at £125, and don’t really want to pay much more than this for some bindings.
I was wondering if you know anything about the quality of these bindings and if they are decent. Also, maybe give me a few suggestions to look at that would be good for this board.
I am in between an intermediate and advanced level, and have a shoe size of 9/10. I bought the 156cm board.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Will
Hi Will
Thanks for your message.
The NOW X Yes are good quality bindings. My biggest thing with them and other NOW bindings is board feel, in terms of feeling the flex nose to tail for butters/presses and the likes, but otherwise, they’re good bindings. I think ideally I would go 6/10 or 7/10 in terms of flex for the Standard – I felt the X YES at 5/10 flex. So a little softer than ideal, but still doable for sure. For more on the X YES, you can check out my review of them here.
As bindings get stiffer they tend to get more expensive, so if you’re looking at that kind of price range, then they might be your best bet. But if you can find past season versions of others you should be able to get them cheaper than normal. Since those are 2 seasons old, they will be cheaper than if you were to find one season old, but anything that’s not current season should be discounted.
Some good options to look out for that are reasonably priced (and even better if you can find them in past season model) and would be a good match to the Standard are the Burton Cartel and Union Force.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the info Nate, I appreciate your advice and opinion! I’ll take a look at your suggestions
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review sounds like a great board. Right now I’m riding a 155 GNU Headspace, and while it is exceptional board I find that my riding style is a little too aggressive for it and am looking for something more stable at speed an uneven terrain etc as well as something with a bit more pop. I’m 5’10 150lb and wear 10.5 boots and was looking at the 156 Standard. Was between this and the Mercury but this sounds a little more stable and wider. But one thing that I really do like about the Headspace is the edge hold and how well it carves, so I was wondering how the Standard carves and if it’s more suited to longer drawn out carves out shorter carves etc.
Thanks!
Hi Ian
THanks for your message.
Versus the Headspace I’d say it’s a little more suited to long drawn out carves, but it’s still not one for super long drawn out carves, if that makes sense. I wouldn’t say it’s more stable than the Mercury. Similar though. The 156 would work for you. It’s on the big side for your specs, IMO, when you take into account length and width, but doable, particularly if you’re looking for it to be more stable at speed and more aggressive. Versus the 155 Headspace, it will be that for sure.
Hope this helps with your decision
Okay cool thanks for the info! Yeah now that I’m looking at the recommended rider weight specs for the Standard the 153 might be more suited for my weight. And yeah I feel you on the carving etc , just want to be sure it’s decent as I like something that isa well rounded board especially since I can’t demo it . Still a little on the fence between this and the Mercury haha but I know I can’t go wrong with either boards!
You’re very welcome Ian. Yeah both really nice boards, IMO, so not a bad choice between them. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with and how you get on, on snow. Happy riding!
For sure thanks Nate !
Hi Nate !
Sorry to bug you again haha. But I really want to get the Standard and only the 156 is available. Do you think it will feel to unresponsive for my boot size etc ?
Hi Ian
I think it’s mostly weight that make this board on the big side for you. With your boot size, it’s not actually super wide for you. I would put you on around a 155 for your weight/height specs as your “standard all-mountain” size. So the 156 isn’t far off that. But it’s on the wider end of a good range for your boots, so that in combination with being on the high end of your length range, makes it on the big side of your range overall. But it’s doable.
Ah ok yeah I totally understand. Normally I ride around 155 or 156 so that’s why I was a little hesitant to go for the 153, but as you said I’m more in the weight range of the 53. I actually was able to hunt down a 153 ! Rode it a couple times so far ,and it definitely is a small amount wider than my 155 Headspace was . That extra width def helps with railing carves you can really lay this thing over. It also really does feel like the perfect balance of having stability for charging, but also being playful. Much smoother at speed than the my Headspace yet still easy to butter and def has more pop than the headspace . I even hit some park features and it feels great in the park too :). The only thing I had to get used to a little, which was more due to the conditions was that it doesn’t have the same edge hold as my Headspace on super hard / icy snow. Probably due to the little bit of rocker in the ends but also its kind of hard to beat magne traction for that haha. But yeah overall the Standard is definitely a super versatile all mountain board, I can see why it ranked so high with you and thanks for the help ! 🙂
Hi Ian
Thanks for the update and your insights. Very much appreciated. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the work you put in your website, amazing reviews and so helpful! I’ve been looking for the right snowboard for me to buy (my first own board), but I’ve now looked at so many different options that my head is spinning, so was hoping you could maybe help out a bit!
I would say I’m an intermediate to advanced (more on the advanced side) snowboarder that likes to do a bit of everything. I like to play around when going down slopes, like to do (small) jumps and tricks wherever I can, like to explore off piste and look for tree roads or soft snow, like to get up to speed and being able to carve well. If we pass a park I’ll get in there for sure, but won’t spend hours there. Focus for me is more on going down mountains, freestyle, exploring off piste, getting up to speed etc. I would think I would need an all mountain board, directional twin, that’s playful but still able to hold carves and get up to speed. Below are the options that I’m left with after research, but with each I have concerns (but maybe it’s just me looking too much for the perfect board).
– Yes Standard or Greats (worried that it’s too stiff)
– Salomon Assassin (worried about performance at speed)
– Bataleon Goliath or Evil Twin (like their specs but worried about 3BT and the learning curve, and how it’s manoeuvrability will be in tight spots)
– Jones Mountain Twin (seems to be not great at icier parts)
– LibTech TRS (really like this one but worried about performance in powder, since it’s a true twin)
– GNU Rider’s Choice (worried that it’s more of a park board and that it will perform bad off piste and in powder)
– Burton Custom Flying V (worried about stiffness and edge hold)
A lot of options as you can see, but just getting stuck at what would be the best option for me. FYI – I’m between 5”10 / 5”11 (180cm) and around 170 pounds (77kg).
Thanks in advance!
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy
Thanks for your message.
Given that you need something that will do well in powder, I would probably cross off the TRS and Greats. And given you want to ride fast as well, I would probably cross off the Rider’s Choice. It’s not terrible at speed, but I think you’ll likely want something that’s a little better at speed. The Assassin is OK at speed, but not quite as good in powder as others on the list you have. The Custom Flying V isn’t great in icy conditions – that’s it’s only real downside, but since you were concerned about the Mountain Twin (MT) in icy conditions, it’s probably going to concern you more. The Mountain Twin is decent in icy conditions – and certainly better than the Custom Flying V, in my experience. It’s as good as the Assassin. Not quite as good as the likes of the Standard/Greats, or the GNU/Lib Tech options you’ve listed, but still decent.
I haven’t ridden any Bataleon boards, so can’t say much there.
So, I would be leaning either Standard or MT. Standard not as good on a carve as the Greats, IMO, but it’s better in powder – and a more all-rounder, which you seem to be looking for. And not as stiff, IMO, as it’s listed as. I would call it 6/10 flex – same as the Mountain Twin.
But long story short, I’d be leaning Standard or Mountain Twin for what you’re describing. If you can let me know your boot size, I would be happy to make a sizing suggestion.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your response. Really helpful, this has really narrowed down the options for me and I’ll likely go for one of your recommendations.
What size would you recommend for the MT and Standard? I have boot size 10 to 10.5, I’m 5”10 / 5”11 (180cm) and around 170 pounds (77kg).
I was thinking the 156 Standard or 157 MT? I could get a Standard 159 fairly cheap, but worried that the size is a bit too big.
Many thanks!
Hi Jeremy
I’d be thinking the same for your specs (156 Standard, 157 MT). Yeah, unfortunately, I think the 159 would be a little too big for the Standard for you, IMO.
Thanks Nate for your amazing site and content.
I’m looking to upgrade and get an all mountain board that fits my needs better. I’m 5’8 180-185lbs size 9 DC boots, athletic/strong. Currently riding the step ons but also have some malivita’s that I rode the last two seasons.
I have a 153 Rome stalefish so I don’t necessarily need an all mountain board that handles deep pow.
My current all mountain board is a 2018 Yes The Greats 156. I like it but feel like there’s something better for me.
I’m 43 (but still think I’m 25) intermediate rider. I look for natural jumps, side hits, rollers, etc. but not in the park too much other than some small and mid ramps and no jibs. I’m decent switch and getting better, same with butters.
I’m looking for something that I can both carve and ride fast, but also something with decent pop and can really have fun and play with and progress with.
I just can’t decide between several boards.
The Standard
Typo
Assassin/assassin Pro
?????
Also, after having the stalefish last season I enjoyed the directional nature of it and how it handled. So I’m torn if a directional twin is the better option too.
I’ll likely only land jumps switch and play around switch but doubt I’ll be launching switch. If that helps at all.
Any suggestions on boards and what size you’d go with.
Thanks in advance.
Jonathan.
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of riding switch, I think you’ll be fine with something directional twin, given what you’re describing. The likes of the Standard, Typo and Assassin/Assassin Pro are going to be fine riding switch.
My instinct is leaning towards the Assassin Pro, given that you’re athletic, strong and want to carve and bomb, but still have a little bit of playfulness and good pop. I’d be leaning 156, but you could go out to the 159, if you were wanting to go a little longer.
The Standard would certainly work too. In that I’d go no longer than 156 – it’s a wider board. But I’d be leaning Assassin Pro, just because I think you can get a better carve out of it than with the Standard. Same goes versus the likes of the Assassin and Typo. Particularly with the Typo, you may not get the stability at speed that you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome. Thank you for the feedback. I’ve been watching more of Ryan Knaptons videos and as I age could see myself playing more with carves, butters, and more ground type freestyles as well. I think the assassin pro fits the bill even more if that’s the route I end up going. Is that accurate?
Any suggestions on a better suited board for that style? Just curious. Thanks so much for your feedback already.
Hi Jonathan
It kinda depends. If you want that mix of being able to carve but still butter well, then I wouldn’t necessarily go with what Ryan Knapton would ride. That guy can butter anything, no matter how stiff it is. But one thing you could consider is going with a twin, full camber board (if you weren’t planning on riding much powder). But I probably wouldn’t want to go as stiff as what Ryan would go, if you want to include butters – unless you’re a powerhouse butterer like he is!
Something like:
– Burton Blossom (or Freethinker – though you’d want to be pretty strong to butter the Freethinker easily)
– YES Jackpot
Or something mostly camber, like:
– Niche Crux
– Ride Burnout
– Ride Benchwarmer
– Salomon Huck Knife or Huck Knife Pro
Or full camber, but directional twin, like:
– Arbor Shiloh Camber
– Burton Custom Camber
Thank you sir. I just ordered the assassin pro 156. I appreciate all your help and suggestions.
You’re very welcome Jonathan. Hope it treats you well. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Dear Nate,
Thank you for your review!
I would like to ask your opinion, I plan to buy my first own board+binding. I’m currently 230lbs, but plan to reduce to 210 and stay there, 6.3 feet, own a Salomon Dialogue Boa US10.5, intermediate level, riding for about 3 years, mostly groomers, bits of trees and powder.
I’m considering the yes. standard (162), typo (161) or capita mercury (160w) with Falcor/Atlas/Cartel X bindings.
What do you say, am I on the right track regarding SB designs and sizes? Or should I consider other options?
Thank you!
Hi Gabor
Yeah, I think you’re on the right track. Some things to note.
The Typo is the most playful of those 3 – the quickest edge to edge as well. Not quite as good in powder or in terms of stability at speed as the other 2. The Mercury is the most aggressive and takes the most power to ride. The Standard is in between.
Size-wise, I think you’d be better to go 161 for the Mercury. It’s well wide enough for your boots, IMO. You don’t need to go as wide as the 160W. For the Typo, the 161 could be bordering on being too narrow. It’s probably fine, depending on your binding angles and depending on how deep you carve, but it could be pushing it. The 163W isn’t overly wide for a wide board – and is a doable length for you – so that’s an option too. The Standard 162 is plenty wide enough, in fact a little too wide for 10.5s. Even the 159 is wide for 10.5s. You could consider sizing down to that. The 159 Standard would be more in line with the 161 Typo, in terms of sizing.
In terms of bindings, all of those would match the Standard and Mercury well. Bordering on too stiff for the Typo though, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you Nate!
Actually I’m leaning more and more toward the Standard. What mixes my situation a bit, that my boot will be probably a bit short (my feet are mondo 285). Will the Standard 159 also work with a US11 (or even US11.5 … in case) Salomon or would be too narrow?
Thank you again!
Hi Gabor
The 159 Standard is wide enough for 11.5s. It’s as wide as a typical wide board – wider than some wide boards.
Hi Nate
Thanks for such detailed reviews.
I’m a novice here and this season will be my forst time snowboarding. I’m working hard to get my carving down. I’m about 6’ tall and currently weigh about 200 pounds but typical weight range is 165-175. (Lots of covid weight lol) my boot size is 10.5
I’m interested in an all mountain board that I won’t have to grow out if as my skills get better. Looking at mostly groomed trails, some powder, and just wanna do more aggressive carves at decent speed. I’ve narrowed down between the Standard 159 and the Typo 158. My current weight is on the edge of the Typo 158s weight range but would you be able to recommend between the two? I shouldn’t need to get a wide board correct? I have Burton Moto boots with the mission reflex bindings also by burton.
I’ll be honest I’m more drawn to the Typo because the design looks so sick but obviously that’s meaningless at the end of the day. Thanks in advance!
Hi Mick
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Typo for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s the easier board to progress on. It’s one of the better boards for those who are higher-end beginners that want a board that will last them as they get better. It’s still not something I would typically recommend for a first timer, but at a stretch I think it’s doable – and certainly more doable than the Standard. The Standard isn’t super advanced, but you’d want to be a solid intermediate rider, IMO. It’s something that could slow down your progression at the start, even if it’s going to be something you may never grow out of.
Secondly, in terms of matching your boot/binding combo, you’d ideally want to go a little stiffer in both boots and bindings. For the Typo, the bindings match well. The boots are still on the softer side for the Typo but still doable.
Size-wise, the Typo in 158 would be perfect, IMO. As a beginner you want to size down a little – at your current specs, I would consider your “standard all-mountain” size to be roughly 161. So 158 works well, IMO. Then if you do get back to your typical weight range, by that time your skills will be improved and at that weight range you “standard all-mountain” size drops to right around that 158. So the timing could work perfectly.
If you did go Standard, I would actually go to 156. The Standard, even though it doesn’t specify wide sizes is a wider than average board. In the 159 it’s quite wide for 10.5s and the combination of width and length makes it on the big side. For your current specs, it could work, if you were a more advanced rider. But if you get back to your typical weight it’s on the big side. Even the 156 is on the wider side for 10.5s, but that little bit of sizing down compensates for that, making the 156 a good bet for at your normal weight range. But I would go Typo anyway.
Hope this helps
Hey thanks for such a great review! I’m 6’1″ , around 210 pounds, and wear a size 12 or so. I used to have the Yes Greats from 2021 (wider board) and got the longest one I could at 159 cm.
Any advice on the size for this one?
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I would typically size the Standard either similar to the Greats or go a little longer with the Standard, depending on how someone wants to ride them. For your specs, particularly given you’re riding 12s, I would be leaning 162. Not because the 159 would be too narrow, but because I think around 163 is what I would consider your “all-mountain” length, so 159 would be sizing down, IMO, which I’d recommend if you had smaller feet, but given your boot size, I don’t think you need to size down with this board.
Also, compared to the Greats, there is less effective edge versus overall length on this board, so you can go a little longer than you would on the Greats.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hugely helpful! One last question – is it safe to safe, then, that 167 cm would be too big?
Hi Mark
Yeah, 167 would be going too big for you, IMO. I would sooner go 159 than 167, if I was you. Ideally 162, but if it was between 159 and 167, I’d go 159.
Hi Nate,
First, thanks for all you do here and providing a wealth of knowledge and patience with people. Several members of my family have used your page for educating themselves and with purchases.
6’ tall, size 11-11.5 boot, and usually fluctuate between 187 – 197 lbs. I was a solid intermediate rider but have taken a couple years off riding. Before this I routinely borrowed a never summer west and a burton don’t remember the name (I believe it was either 159 or 161 ?) Looking to get my own setup now and am torn between the Yes Typo and Standard. I want an all-around mountain board (carving, powder, groomers, side hits, a little trees) and this season I may venture into the park for the first time for just a bit. I skated for over 10 years in my youth, so why not. Looking for a size recommendation on both those boards if you think they’ll work. I was thinking about not going to big, because I’d like something that turns edge to edge a little better than what I’ve rode in the past.
Thanks!!
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
Between those two boards, the Typo is the more playful (Standard certainly isn’t overly aggressive by any means though) and is going to be quicker edge-to-edge. But if you size the Standard right it will be fine edge to edge. But if edge to edge speed is what you’re looking for, then the Typo is a standout there. The Standard is a little better in powder, it’s better at speed and on big carves, but still quite buttery (though Typo more buttery) and nothing that’s super aggressive or stiff or anything.
Size-wise, I would be looking at (based on roughly 192lbs):
– Typo: 159W is probably the best all-round size for you for this board, IMO. But given that you want to go nimble, the 156W becomes an option. I rode the 155 last time (6’0″, 175lbs, size 10) I rode the Typo and whilst it felt on the small side, it wasn’t crazy small, but it was super nimble. It’s not going to be one for bombing without wobble in that size (even the 159W isn’t going to be a bomber really, but more so with the 156W), but if that’s not a concern, then it should work. And will be a good size for getting started in the park too.
– Standard: 156. This is sizing down from I would consider your typical “all-mountain” size. It’s a wider board, but with 11-11.5s it won’t be wide for you. So you could ride the 159 for sure. But given that you’re looking to get something more nimble, I would be leaning 156.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
My specs: 5’7 155lbs Size 10 boot
I am having a hard time deciding between a board. My top 5 in order are:
1. Yes. Standard 153
2. Yes. The Greats 151
3. Jones MT 154
4. Capita Asymulator 152
and I was probably gonna add the Union Force or Burton cartel X to one of those boards
I ride the entire mountain cornice runs @mammoth, rails/boxes, butters, trees, dad park jumps, powder (when available, but I want to be able to enjoy it), and carving at high speeds.
I previously had gnu boards, Burton custom, atomic hatchet, and I just felt like they did not do everything I wanted them to do. So this time I am tryin to get that Quiver of 1.
Thank you!
Hi Bradley
Thanks for your message.
Given that you want to have that powder performance available when you get powder, I would be leaning Mountain Twin or Standard. If that powder is never more than a foot or so deep, then you could definitely get away with the Greats and Asymulator, but if you wanted to be ready for the bigger dumps, then I’d be leaning MT or Standard.
Size-wise, I think you’re spot on with those sizes – the only one I’d question is whether to go to the 154 for the Asymulator. The 152 doable, but that would be the only debate. I would be happy to give that more thought, if you were to decide to go with it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey nate, I’m having a really hard time picking between this years standard in a 153 and the basic in a 155. I’m 5’10 180lbs with a size 10 boot. I’m an intermediate-advanced level rider who loves to ride the whole mountain. I rode the basic a couple of years ago and loved it… but from everything I hear the standard is even better. I really prioritize maneuverability over all, and like a board that’s quick edge to edge but can also bomb when need be. Any thoughts?
Hi Groove
Thanks for your message.
The Basic is the most nimble of the 2 for sure. The Basic is really easy to maneuver – and particularly if you go with the 155, it’s going to give you super easy maneuverability. The Standard isn’t bad in terms of maneuverability though – and particularly if you size to the 153 with your specs, it should be plenty maneuverable and still offer you more in terms of bombing/stability at speed. But for pure edge to edge speed, the Basic 155 will outdo the Standard 153, IMO.
Have you considered the Typo? It’s as maneuverable, or at least very close to, as the Basic, but it’s a little better at speed. Not to the same extent as the Standard, but it’s a little better in terms of speed.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, I’m going to buy the Yes Standard and trying to figure out the right size. I’m 5’10”, 170lbs with a ~9 boot size. I’m an Intermediate rider (on the lower end since I’m just getting back into it, but should be at my past solid intermediate level soon) that mostly rides groomers in Colorado, but excited to venture out in between trees and whatnot. Don’t do much park, but won’t rule it out. I want it to be stable carving and at higher speeds, but I don’t get that fast compared to others. I’d prioritize turning and carving vs freestyle riding. I’ve been reading that the 156 is going to feel a bit more nimble and easier to initiate turns, but the 159 might be more stable at higher speeds. I think the 156 is better for me as I won’t be doing any crazy speeds, but curious what you recommend of any of the size. Also, any recommendations for boots/bindings that would be good for this board and my style of riding? From your bindings lists and other things I’ve read it seems like Union Forces, Union Strata, and Burton Cartels are good options. Your reviews are awesome!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I think 156 for this board for you. For your specs, I’d put you on around 158 for a standard all-mountain length (assuming a relatively advanced level). But given the width of this board, I think it’s better to go down than up. Given that it sounds like you’ll get back to solid intermediate fairly quickly, I wouldn’t necessarily size down at all for ability level reasons, but because of that width I would size to the 156. The 159, when you combine the width and length is getting on the big side for you, IMO.
For bindings, the Force, Strata and Cartel would all be a good match, IMO – and the K2 Lien AT. Anything with a 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be your best bet, IMO. So any of those 4 (6/10 flex) or you could also check out:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
If you wanted to go a little stiffer.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, appreciate the help! So stoked I found your website. Keep up the good work it’s making an impact.
You’re very welcome Chris. And thanks for the kind words. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Amazing amount of information and expertise on your site – hoping you can help me out!
I’m looking at a Standard and deciding between a 156 or a 159. I’m 6’1”, 180lbs, 10.5 boot (Burton) and 12/12 duck (on previous board). I like to ride a bit of everything – cruise and carve the groomers/pow, follow the kids on side hits and some trees. Not much park for me, though.
Feel like I’m right between sizes with both weight and boot. Any advice to help me decide would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Can see your debate between those sizes – it’s a tough call between them.
You’re very similar specs to me in terms of height and weight, but just that little bit longer in the foot. I really like the 156 personally, but part of the reason I like to size down to that is that it’s a bit outside my preferred width-range. Ideally I like to be somewhere between 260-265mm at the inserts. With the inserts on the 156 at around 270mm, it’s just a little wide, but then I’d typically ride an all-mountain board a little longer (more like 157-159), so sizing down to 156 works nicely. With 10.5s that shifts that width range a little, so less need to size down. Going to the 159 however, you do go to a 275mm width at inserts – which is getting wide for 10.5s – and 159 wouldn’t be sizing down for you, IMO.
Hope all that makes sense! I don’t think either size is wrong for you, but I think it depends no what you want to prioritize the most. E.g. if speed, stability at speed and float in powder are more important to you versus maneuverability at slow speeds (e.g. trees, sidehits) – then 159 will probably work better – just make it harder in the trees/sidehits. Visa versa, then 156.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for this – it does help! I think I’m leaning toward the 159 to for the speed/stability. Really appreciate your perspective!
You’re very welcome Chris. Hope you have an awesome season! Let me know what you go with and how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow (if you think of it at the time).
Hey Nate,
Awesome review, and something that really helped me decide on this board. I ended up changing my mind from a 162 to a 167, after speaking with a guy from Evo over the phone based on my weight and riding style. I go off small and medium jumps here and there, have yet to master spins off them but like the idea of switching off natural “jumps” while cruising at a good clip. I normally enjoy most of the day going fairly fast and carving in safe spots on blues (haha I live in the Northeast, so we have a fair amount of ice).
My question is did I go too big on the length? I weigh 250 lbs and am 5’10”. My current board is a 158 K2 Zeplin which I bought in 2000 (I was 15). I always felt it was too short as I grew a bit, and now with my weight I know I’ll be in the 160+ range. I have two kids who love to ski, take me into the park sometimes, but I never follow them in the trees on a board. I would like to start buttering a little and still be able to negotiate spins, but spend most of my time cruising and wanted to get your thoughts on 167 vs 162. I also bought burton step ons to make life a little easier and so the kids aren’t waiting for dad. The guy I spoke with said it’d take a bit to get used to a 167 from a 158, but over time I’d like it for its stability at higher speeds. I’d like to hear your thoughts given my style, height/weight, and conditions here in the Northeast.
Thanks, Dave
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
In this case, IMO, it’s really going to depend on your boot size. The 167 actually looks to be marginally narrower at the waist and so will likely be narrower at the inserts as well, depending on the stance width you were to ride it with, but it’s not so much about getting your boots onto the board, it’s more about whether or not the board is wide for your boots or not. If you’ve got 12s or 13s or something like that, then I think the 167 is going to be fine, but if you’ve got smaller boots, then sizing down makes sense. I don’t think 167 is too long for you, but if it’s too wide for you and that long at the same time, then I think it’s getting a bit big overall, given you want to be able to butter and spin with it. You would definitely get more stability at speed from the 167, but it might be at the cost of maneuverability, if it’s too wide. Going shorter makes up for the maneuverability if the board is too wide. So if you could let me know your boot size, that would really help (and out of curiosity – did you tell the guy your boot size or did he ask for it?)
Hey Nate,
He didn’t ask but knew because I ordered an 11 wide burton photon boot which fits a large step on binding.. I told him my height and weight… I told him I ride a 158 since teenage years and I’m in the Northeast. A 9cm jump didn’t seem too big when I saw it was a little over 3.5 inches, but everything I’m reading puts me in a 162 besides my weight… which both the 167 and 162 say 220+. I assumed a 167 would be better for 250lbs but now I’m not sure, given the unknown of how hard it might be to butter, spin, and maneuver. I don’t currently butter or even spin, but didn’t want to rule it out. I measured up 3.5 inches from my old board and it’s just above my mouth but below my nose, it comes in Friday. Haha its so hard because I can’t return it once I ride it.
Thanks, Dave
Hi Dave
Yeah makes it hard when you can’t return it once you ride it, for sure.
I think 167 is fine for your height/weight specs in terms of length, it’s just whether the combo of the height and width is too much. The 162/167 are on the wider side for 11s. Not ultra wide, but wider than ideal, which means sizing down can make sense. You’re looking at around 280mm at the inserts on the 162 and 278mm at the inserts on the 167, depending on stance width. I’d say ideal width range at inserts for 11s would be around 270-275. So it’s not crazy wide for you or anything. It’s a tough call. If they had something in between – a 164 or 165! If you wore 10s for boots, then I’d be more definite about saying go 162. With 11s, it’s 50/50 on those sizes.
So yeah, I think it comes down to whether you’d prefer to optimize stability at speed and float in powder or maneuverability and butters/spins etc.
Good day Nate,
Hope this message finds you well! First things first, I chanced upon your website and have spent hours digesting your thoughts on various board/bindings, as well as combed through most of the comments and replies – wealth of knowledge there, so I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to every message that you get in detail.
About me – been riding on/off for the past 10 or so years, usually less than 5 trips each season. I have been riding on a hand me down Burton Custom that is probably >15 years old (design indicates late 90s/early 00s) with Burton Freestyle v11.0 bindings. I always thought it was just acceptable, and never truly felt confident coming down the mountain.
I got new boots last year after realizing I was wrongly sized at the Burton store (go figure), and got new DC Judge boots which greatly improved my overall experience. I figured this would be the year to get a new board/binding that will last for a while.
I ride 90% mountain, occasionally through the trees and small jumps, and predominantly board in the North East (unpredictable weather, slush at times, icy during others, rarely nice powder). I generally prefer slightly stiffer boards as it exudes a greater sense of control, but not set in stone with that.
From all the research I have done, it seems like the following are boards I should be considering:
– YES. Standard/Typo
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Bataleon Whatever
I believe these are mainly all-mountain boards, which is in line with my goal of having one board that will “do it all”. Both YES. boards seem to be highly reviewed, with the ability to deal with icy conditions whereas the Jones is not quite rated for that (per your reviews). Between both YES. boards, it looks like the Standard is slightly stiffer, which is something I would like, unless I am missing something? The big curveball is the Bataleon board – I am unable to find much reviews on it but everything I’ve read indicates that it is a strong contender as well. Do you have any experience with the brand/board?
I had previously considered the CAPiTA D.O.A. as well, but that seems to be more of a all-mountain freestyle board, which is not quite suited to me.
Question: I’m 6’0″ and about 190 lbs, with 290CM/US11.0M sized DC Judge boots. Does my size call for a wider board? I am having issues with overhang on my current setup (I really noticed it coming down a steep trail last season), and would really like to not repeat the same mistake. The Standard seems to come in 156/159 so I assume the former would be better, and the Typo comes in 158/159W and I’m assuming the latter in this case?
As for bindings, the following are what I have narrowed them down to:
– Union Strata
– Union Force
I’m leaning more towards the Strata from the fact that it has better padding, and seems to be the more comfortable option. My question is: will the mini-disc be advantageous/disadvantageous from a board feel, or even maintenance perspective? From your Strata review, it looks like a mini-disc provides better butterability/board feel?
Question:
– Seeing as I have a stiffer boot, does it make sense to naturally do with a slightly stiffer board/binding setup so all parts of the setup jive with each other? Or it doesn’t really matter?
Please feel free to correct any misunderstandings that I might have, or to recommend something different altogether. I am not locked in on any one of these, and would rather purchase something with input from someone who has experience with them, rather than my WAG (wild-a**-guess).
Thank you for your time, Nate.
Best,
Jay L.
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would say between the Standard and Typo for what you’re describing, I would go Standard – it’s a little stiffer. Both the Mountain Twin (MT) and Standard are around a 6/10 flex (by my feel), with the Typo more of a 4.5.
The MT isn’t as good in icy conditions as the Standard, but it’s not bad either. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say Standard 5/5, or maybe 4.5/5 at worst and MT 4/5, so the MT can handle hard/icy conditions pretty well.
In terms of matching gear it’s a good idea to try to match the flex relatively closely, but doesn’t have to be exact. As a general rule, I prefer not to ride softer boots and bindings on a stiffer board, but if the boots and bindings, particularly boots, are a little stiffer on a softer board, that way around works better for me than the other way around, if that makes sense. Still wouldn’t go too crazy though. A 10/10 flexing boot on a 4/10 flexing board for example wouldn’t be ideal. I haven’t ridden the Judge but couldn’t say for sure. It has a flex rating of 8/10, but based on my experience with other DC boots, I’d predict it would be closer to 7/10. Whether 8/10 or 7/10, I think it’s still in range for a 6/10 flexing board/binding combo, so I think you’re good there. I probably wouldn’t go Judge with Typo though, I think the gap is getting a bit big at that point (too stiff a boot/binding on a softer board can make the board feel a bit twitchy).
For bindings, both the Strata and Force would be a good match for either the Standard or MT. The mini-disc definitely makes for better board feel/butterability, IMO and in my experience. A flexier base plate also helps with board feel. Whilst the Force has a rating of 7/10 for base plate and highback, I felt it had a softer highback and stiffer base plate versus the Strata. Overall on snow, they both feel like around a 6/10 to me. I would say one difference which might also help is that the Strata has a more explosive/springy kind of response, whereas the Force has a smoother, more even response, if that makes sense.
Size-wise, the Standard is a little wider than the average “regular width” board, so in terms of width you should be good on either the 156 and 159. Both sizes work for your specs, I think the best way to really decipher is whether you want to optimize agility (particularly for trees), ease of jumps, side hits, buttering etc (then 156) or if you want to optimize for speed, stability and float in powder (then go 159). Also if you’re a more advanced rider, I’d be leaning 159, if more intermediate, then more to 156.
Size-wise for the Mountain Twin, in between the 156W and 159W. Again both would work, and would depend on the same as discussed above.
From what you’re describing, probably leaning 159/159W, but 156/156W are doable, depending on how you’re predominantly using them.
I don’t currently test Bataleon boards unfortunately, so I can’t say much there. Hoping to get on some in the future, hopefully as soon as this winter.
Hope this gives you more to go off.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great review. I’m considering the Yes Standard 2022 for this season. I’d be using it mostly for trees, side hits, groomers, some speed, and powder when it’s available. Not really much in the park. I’m 5’7.5″ and 160 lbs, and I just got Ride Lasso size 9.5 boots. What do you think would be the best length if I go with the Standard? Is there a different board you’d recommend instead of the Standard? And can you recommend bindings that would let me take advantage of the slam back inserts if I come across a powder day? Really appreciate your reviews and any feedback you have! Thanks!
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
For your specs and how you describe your riding, I think the 153 would be your best bet. I think the Standard in 153 should work well for what you’re describing. There are of course plenty of others that would also fit what you’re describing, but I think that’s a good bet. I think you’d likely find the 156 not maneuverable enough for trees with your specs, and the 151 would be too small for powder and speed, so I think 153, the sweet spot for you, for sure.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I’m doing a complete equipment upgrade this season and your reviews and comment sections are incredibly helpful. Thanks a lot dude!
First, some stats. I’m 5’11” (180 cm) and currently around 155-160 lbs (70-73 kg). I have a US size 10 (EUR 43) boot, but I might try going for a 9.5 for the next pair. I’m living in Italy and most of my riding is at resorts in the Alps. I ride a lot of groomers, but I have the most fun looking for deeper stuff which often involves mixing in some trees. Might do a couple of passes through the park per weekend.
I’m currently riding an older (2013) Burton Custom, full camber, 158W that I picked up used for cheap. Its fine on the groomers, but I’d like an All-Mountain that can handle more powder. It also feels too big for me and I’d like something that’s more playful, nimble and quicker edge to edge.
I’ve narrowed it down to three options:
– Yes Standard
– Jones Mountain Twin
– Lib Tech Golden Orca
From what I can tell, Standard and Mountain Twin are neck and neck. Similar boards, similar pricing, great reviews everywhere (a friend who has tried both says he preferred the Standard and its hard to go against a personal recommendation). The Golden Orca is a step up on price and is brand new so there is less info available. It’s probably more board than I need, but seems like its the best of the three for serious powder. The T.Rice marketing is working…
FINALLY SOME QUESTIONS:
– I was thinking of going as small as possible on length (agility over powder performance). I can only find the Standard in 156 (153 is sold out) while the Mountain Twin is available locally at 154 and 157. Any advice you can give between these options? Would I be missing much in the deep stuff with the smaller boards?
– Ignoring the cost, is there any reason to get the Standard or Mountain Twin over the Golden Orca? (maybe you haven’t tried it yet, so could be impossible to say for sure…)
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of length, I think something in the 155-158 range is probably a good bet for height/weight specs, but if you’re looking to go shorter to prioritize agility over float/stability at speed, then 154 is doable (i.e. Mountain Twin 154). Note that part of why the Custom will be feeling so big is that it’s a wide board. In my experience, you don’t need to go wide most of the time with 10s and usually wides are too wide for 10s. Some wides are OK, as they’re not overly wide, but the 158W is overall too big for your specs and it’s largely because of the width. If going with a board that wide, when you’ve got 10s, then I’d want to ride a shorter length to compensate for it being too wide.
With something like the Standard, which is wide for a regular width board, I’d look to downsize a little bit. The 156 is still a possibility, as it will still feel smaller than the 158W Custom. But 153 is also a possibility (if you had availability), given that you’re looking to prioritize agility. 153 is still well wide enough for 10s, IMO.
For the Mountain Twin (MT), typically I’d say go 157 and that’s going to be a good width and length. But given you want to prioritize agility, the 154 makes sense and would definitely work for your specs. The MT is also wider at the inserts than the waist width would suggest, so you’ve definitely got something wide enough for 10s, even in the 154, but it’s not as wide overall as the Standard. Some spec comparisons for reference:
– 154 MT (251mm waist, 264mm at back insert, 292mm tip and tail)
– 157 MT (254mm waist, 267mm at back insert, 296mm tip and tail) – note this is at a 560mm (22″) stance width – it’s a couple of mm wider at it’s reference stance of 600mm (23.6″) but that’s a really wide reference stance, so I ride it narrower than that.
– 153 Standard (253mm waist, 265mm at back insert, 299mm tip and tail)
– 156 Standard (258mm waist, 270mm at back insert, 305mm tip and tail)
In terms of powder performance, definitely looking at not as good on the smaller sizes. It’s a noticeable difference, but fairly subtle when talking about a 3cm length difference. But yeah, definitely sacrificing a little in terms of float in powder and stability at speed, but gaining more agility and playfulness.
I haven’t tried the Golden Orca yet, but I have tried the Orca. Definitely going to be better in powder. But in terms of getting something that’s quicker edge to edge and more playful, not going to be that, IMO. I didn’t find the Orca very quick edge to edge – it should ride really well in powder (I didn’t get any to test it in, when I rode it), but on hard pack it’s not quick to edge to edge, in my experience. To get it to feel playful and or quick edge to edge, you’d have to go pretty short with it, IMO. Golden Orca doesn’t look to be quite as wide as the regular Orca, so maybe don’t have to size down quite as much, so might get away with the 153. If you were to regular Orca, I’d go down to 150 at least. I find T.Rice boards to be really good for when your bombing the mountain fairly straight lining it. They seem really good for bombing with aggressive, straight big lines. But not so good for maneuvering in tight spaces. I haven’t met a Travis Rice model that I’ve liked riding in trees. With lots of powder in the trees, I’m sure the Orca would be amazing, but otherwise, not the most nimble. Again, this is all based on the regular Orca and I haven’t ridden the Golden Orca.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Loving your review on the Yes Standard. I am looking at the Yes Standard 2022 for this season. I’d be using it more for carving trees, buttering, speed, and some powder – not as much on the parks and rails. Weight fluctuates between 140-150, height between 5’7″ and 5’8″, boot size 8.5, currently riding a 153cm more for parks/groomers. Leaning towards a 153 again if you think that’s appropriate? Any recommendations/feedback would be greatly appreciated! Cheers!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
Typically I’d say around 153 would be a good length for you, with a narrower width board, but with the Standard being a bit wider than average, and with 8.5 boots, I’d size down a little on this board. The 153 is around 265mm at the inserts, which is even a little wider than a typical regular width board in a 156-159 length range. In this case, I think the 151 would be more appropriate. It’s still on the wider side for 8.5s, but sizing down that length a little compensates for that. Even the 149 is in your range – and I think if you were going to be doing more park/freestyle with it, then I’d be inclined to give the 149 some thought as well. But I think the 151 would work well. But 153 a little too big overall, IMO, particularly if you’re going to be using it in trees and buttering.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m deciding between YES Standard and GNU Riders Choice Asym C2X.
I love to make the whole mountain my playground and love laps through the park (from jibs and rails to meadium/large jumps). Jumps are my favorite. I am slowly spending less time in the park as I get older though, lol. I love riding switch and playing around with natural features on the hill. Sometimes I bomb the hill or carve up the groomers for most of the day. Snow near me is usually hard/icy.
What do you think between these 2 boards?
I think the more freestyle/playful oriented GNU is winning out. I rarely get to ride deep powder. Also, really want to try out an Asym board…
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
You’ve narrowed it down to two really good options for what you’re describing and you wouldn’t be disappointed with either, IMO.
But yeah I agree that the Rider’s Choice is a little more freestyle oriented and a little more playful and not quite as good for powder, so given what you’re leaning towards and that you want to try an asym board, that’s probably the way to go. Both are really good in hard/icy conditions, in my experience.
The only other thing to consider is sizing. It’s possible that there’s one option that’s a better sizing match for you. I’m happy to let you know my sizing opinion, if you don’t already have sizes in mind. Would just need your height, weight and boot size (already have your riding style, which also comes into play for sizing).
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate!
I’m 5’11” , 150ish lbs, size 10 boots. I ended up going with last years riders choice model in the 154.5 length. Can’t wait to ride it! Previously I was on a 155 Ride Buckwild from 2012. I notice the new GNU RC seems a little softer flex compared to the Buckwild.
Hi Kyle
I think that’s a great size for your specs.
I never rode the Buckwild but looking at specs, looks like Buckwild 2012 was rated around a 6/10 flex. Rider’s Choice, by my feel, is around a 5/10 flex (GNU rate the 154.5 a 5.5/10). So it is likely a little softer. But also, sometimes a board feels softer to flex in hand and that doesn’t always translate to how it feels on snow. I always flex boards in hand before I get them out on snow to test them. And often boards might feel the same in hand, but then feel softer or stiffer on snow. Or one might feel stiffer in hand, but end up feeling the same on snow as one that felt softer in hand, etc etc. I still think it’s likely to feel a little softer on snow than the Buckwild, though, but I guess you’ll find out soon!
Hi, Nate!
Thanks for the detailed review. I am looking for a daily driver all mountain board that performs while in powder and the YES standard looks like a great choice But I am having an internal dilemma about what size I should get 153 or 156. I wear size 10.5 Van infuse boots, weight 155 lbs and I’m 6 1′. I’ve been riding a long time, I’d consider myself a advance rider, but have never tried out a volume shifted board before. I love to ride in the trees, off piste, rip sit hits and send cliffs. Always looking for that ungroomed natural terrain. Also like to ride switch and do some spins, but I stay away from jibbing. Will hit jumps in the park though. Life is all about those 10+ inch powder days, so I am leaning towards the 156 to maximize performance/float in powder. But my specs seems to line up with the 153 better, i guess I am a little scared to downsize that much. Currently riding a mid 2000s camber 158 burton custom that i have had for far too long. Whats size standard would you recommend for me?
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
I can see your dilemma for sure. It’s a tough choice between those 2 sizes. And I can see your hesitation to size down as much as 153, and ultimately I think it’s a good hesitation to have, as I think it would be sizing down a little too much. It’s borderline, but with 10.5 boots, I would say go 156. If it was a wider board – like a full on volume shifted board that was wider (the Standard is kind of in between – it’s definitely wide for a regular width board, but it’s not super wide that I’d class it as a full on short/wide board) – then definitely I’d say down to 153 or even shorter, depending on the model. But with 10.5s boots, the Standard 156 isn’t actually that wide for you. It’s at the wider end of a good range, IMO.
So, yeah, whilst it’s a close call, I’d say 153 is sizing down just a bit too much. With size 10 boots or less, or certainly 9.5 boots or less, I’d probably be leaning more 153, but I think 10.5s makes the 156 the best option, IMO, for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome, thanks for the response, I really appreciate it! I was leaning towards the 156 and this has helped me solidify my decision. Happy shredding!
You’re very welcome Sam. Happy shredding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all of the intel – your posts are super informative and helpful.
Been snowboarding for 14 years (guessing 80 days total) and owned a couple boards. Am looking for an all mountain board. I love glades and jumping (park and natural) but also want something that isn’t going to be terrible in either hard/icy conditions or powder (live in the NE, take trips out west every year). I do also enjoy riding at speed but don’t care much about jibbing.
I weigh 160 lbs and wear US 13 boots (down from size 14 street shoe). From the SP width sizing, I’m looking for boards that are 267+ mm at the waist (and that’s using the lower end). Most boards I’ve checked out (using your all mountain/all mountain freestyle lists) aren’t especially wide for the recommended lengths.
Waist widths:
* Yes Standard (263 mm for 159, 268 mm for 162)
* Jones Mountain Twin (261 mm for 159W, 263 mm for 162W)
* GNU Rider’s Choice (268 mm for 158W)
Currently riding a 156W skate banana (which is super chattery at high speeds).
Any recommendations for a lightweight bigfoot interested in my type of riding?
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Width sizing based off waist width is a convenient way to do things, because it’s what brands publish, but the more accurate way is by using width at inserts, which can differ, often quite a bit, for the same waist width.
The Yes Standard, for example is a board that’s wider at the inserts than the waist width suggests – the 159W, for example is around 275mm at the inserts. The waist width suggestions on the width sizing post assume a few things – one of them being that the difference between waist width and width at inserts is roughly 10mm. For the Standard it’s 12mm, so you could kind of say that it’s closer to a 265mm waist width (for the purposes of trying to fit your boots on it).
The Rider’s Choice is the other way around a little bit – the 158W has a waist width of 268mm, but the width at inserts is more like 276mm (so more like an 8mm difference). So very similar width at inserts for the Standard and Rider’s Choice, despite the waist widths looking quite far apart.
The Mountain Twin is another that has a wider width at inserts than the average. E.g. the 159W with a waist of 261mm is around 276mm at the back insert (275mm front insert), if you’re riding at the 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. Which is another thing to take into account. These numbers are all based on reference stance. If you have a wider stance, then that gives you more leeway width-wise. A wider stance puts your feet at a wider part of the board. I’m not sure what your preferred stance width is, but if you know and could let me know that would help and if not, if you could let me know your height as that will help to predict a stance width as well.
Another thing to think about is – have you ever had boot drag on your 156W Skate Banana. I would predict the Skate Banana to have roughly a 273mm width at inserts (if you’re going to measure yourself to confirm that, measure from the base of the board, from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge at the reference stance). If you’ve never had any boot drag issues with it, then you should be good on anything at least that width. Because other things, like binding angles, the profile of your boots (some are bulkier than others) and how deep you like to carve, all effect the chances of boot drag as well.
I think ideally at your weight, the 156 Standard would be better. But at 270mm at the inserts, it might be pushing it. If you ride it at a wider stance though, you’d get a bit more leeway. The reference stance on the Standard is quite narrow at 545mm (21.5″). If you went out to a 585mm stance (23″), you’d gain 2mm of width. And for MT 156W, you’d be looking at around 274mm at the back insert (273mm at the front insert), assuming a 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. So depending on your stance width and depending on whether or not you’ve had any issues with the width of the Skate Banana, those are possibilities. If you’re thinking that the Skate Banana feels too short, then of course, you could move up to the 159 or 159W as well. But want to try to get the best length as well as width.
If you do have trouble with boot drag on the Skate Banana and are looking for something wider than those options, I would be happy to have a good look into the options and come back with some wider options, whilst trying to keep within a good length range. But yeah, if you could let me know your height and typical stance width (if you know it) and your typical binding angles and the brand and model of your boots too, that would be great.
Hope this helps.
Wow – thank you. It would be handy if manufacturers posted widths at the inserts (or even CAD files so you could adjust for stance width). Just did some measurements for my current board/feet.
I am 6’3″ with a stance width of 23.5″ and my feet are just over 12″ (30.5 cm).
My boots are Vans Tri Fit X (size 13) and my toes are up the end of the toe box so not sure if I could realistically drop to 12.5. I’m open to getting new boots if it would make a difference.
Current binding angles are +12/0 (have ridden more duck footed in the past).
I haven’t had any trouble with drag on the Skate Banana but I also don’t carve hard. It’s the thing that I’m most looking to improve this season (I have my sights set on eurocarving).
I like the maneuverability of a short board (big fan of the glades) but I’m pretty unstable once I get up to speed. Have been looking at some of the volume shifted boards (specifically the Dancehaul 152) to stay short but also be a bit more stable. Do you have any thoughts on volume shifted boards? Also I don’t care too much about riding switch for long periods of time so I wouldn’t might a slight directional.
Really appreciate the time you take to write such useful responses!
Hi Alex
Yeah, it would be awesome to get CAD files for sure! But I think they’d be too paranoid people are going to steal their designs, I guess? Or they see it as too complicated for the general public. Personally it would make my job much easier! From my experience, it’s almost always around 2mm extra width for every 40mm (1.5″) of extra stance width.
Given that you’re looking to eurocarve – and that you’ve got a zero degree back binding angle, I think you’ll need to go wider than those boards. But I’d try not to go longer than around 159.
If you don’t mind going directional, then I think volume shifted boards could be a good way to go. But, given your boot size, you wouldn’t have to size down in the same way. You can almost just treat them like wide boards. Sizing down on a volume shifted board is mostly so that you can compensate for the extra width with a shorter length. Also, the downside of sizing down if you’re also looking to carve and need that stability at speed, is that you usually have quite a short effective edge on a volume shifted board – so you’re stability at speed isn’t typically amazing when you’re on edge, when on a board that short. But in your case, I think you can go volume shifted, but in the longer lengths. E.g. the Dancehaul, you could look at the 157. I haven’t ridden the Dancehaul, so I can’t give any firsthand insight as to how it rides or what the width at inserts is or anything like that.
Something like the YES Hybrid in 157 (277mm at the back insert at a 23″ stance width) could work, though it’s not a lot wider than something like the Mountain Twin 159W with a 23.5″ stance. But you’d gain a couple of mm of width.
The Arbor Single is worth checking out (new for 2022, I rode it in the winter and a really nice board) – it’s 268mm at the waist and 283mm at the back insert on the 152, so if you went 156, you’d be looking at roughly 285mm at the back insert – and that’s at a 21″ stance. So probably more like 287-288 at the back insert, which would give you more room to make eurocarves.
I haven’t ridden a ton of volume shifted boards, but the Single stands out as an option to really give you that extra width for eurocarves.
The Dancehaul is probably suitable too, I just don’t know enough about it.
Hey,
Thanks so much for your reviews, they’re great.
I think I’ve narrowed my list down to 3 boards, with available prices, the One LF 2019 (£230), the Slash Brainstorm (£240) or the Yes Standard (£340). I was wondering if you could give any tips as to what might suit me best, and if the standard is worth the extra outlay.
I’ve boarded for 2 seasons, would see myself as intermediate/advanced, and this will be the first board i buy after initially getting whatever the cheapest one was. I like having the freedom to cruise round through all terrain, and most of my freestyle will come on hits rather than the park, although i do like the odd park day. Hoping to be hunting powder whenever possible!
175cm and 150lbs with size 10 US boots
I’ll be skiing in France this season but will be hoping to keep hold of this board for a few seasons to come.
Cheers for your help
Hi JC
Thanks for your message.
If the price is a big factor in your choice, then if you can save £100 it’s probably worth doing. They’re all really good boards. The Standard is my personal favorite of the 3, but if saving £100 helps, then you’re still getting really good boards in the One and the Brainstorm. One caveat to that is the sizing. I think it’s worth the extra outlay if you couldn’t find the One or Brainstorm in the best sizes.
From what you’re describing they’re all definitely suitable. For the Standard, I would be looking at the 153. The Brainstorm the 154. It’s borderline too narrow for 10s though is the only thing. If you ride with +15/-15 angles and don’t tend to carve too aggressively and/or have low profile boots, then I think it would be fine. Otherwise, if might be pushing it being too narrow. The One LF, I’d say go 156. 153 is also a possibility in the One LF, but I’d be leaning 156 for that one, particularly for that extra powder float.
So yeah, I’d go for whichever you can find the best size in. i.e. if you can’t get the 154 Brainstorm (or are worried it’s too narrow) or the 156 One, then I’d look at getting the 153 Standard. But if you can get one of the 154 Brainstorm (and aren’t worried about width) or 156 One LF, then I’d go for one of those to save the cash.
Hope this helps with your decision
You are amazing, I really appreciate your thorough response to me and to everyone else. Your reviews are amazing and so is your care for people who respond. Thanks again, you’ve been a real help!
You are a true G and hopefully one day i’ll see you on the slopes!
You’re very welcome JC. Itching to get into the mountains and onto a board again! Hope you have an awesome season when it rolls around!
So decided to bag to Rossi board, found a great deal online so got the 2019, just completing my set now and was looking at Salomon Launch Boa boots and Salomon Trigger bindings? I was wondering what you thought of those? Do you maybe have any budget friendly suggestions for boots and bindings? Really wanna be mostly in the backcountry (looking to head to st anton) but do prefer a playful ride than just charging down
Hey Nate,
I grabbed the Rossi One based on your advice, found a great price for the 2019 online so jumped on it. Just need to complete the set now, I was looking at Salomon Trigger Bindings and Salomon Launch Boa boots (not committed to brand, just a coincidence) and wondered what you thought of these? Looking for something as budget friendly as possible. I’ll be riding in St Anton this winter so hopefully plenty of backcountry pow but I’m probably more a little more playful out there than a full charger but like to get some carves in before the skiiers come through.
Hi JC
I think the Launch and Trigger would work for boots and bindings. If you were being Fussy, I’d say they’re just slightly on the soft side for the One, but they’re in a range that will definitely work with the board, IMO.
For reference, I would consider the Trigger and Launch to be around a 5/10 flex versus the Rossi One being more of a 6/10. So, it’s getting pretty fussy, so I think you would be absolutely fine with those and they wouldn’t be a wrong choice. But some budget friendly options, in case you did want to look at something just a little stiffer:
– Bindings: Union Force or Burton Cartel (not quite as budget friendly as the Trigger, but still quite reasonable)
– Boots: Vans Invado Pro or Salomon Dialogue. But for boots also note that fit is the most important thing. So go with what fits best first, so long as it’s in a good flex range, and then think about other things.
But yeah, I think the Launch and Trigger work as a combo to go with the One, but those are some other slightly stiffer – more like 6/10 – options that you could consider.
Hey Nate, love your site man. Learned to board on a typo thinks to your recommendations and now want to move up to the standard. I’m 6 ft, currently 225 pounds but in the process of losing weight. Expect to be at least 210 maybe 200 by December. Size 11 boot. What size do you recommend?
Hi Ricky
Thanks for your message.
Assuming 200lbs, I would go 159. With size 11s, this board isn’t going to be super wide for you, but it’s still on the wider side for 11s in the 159. I’d say at 200lbs something around 161-162, assuming a relatively advanced level, but with the board being a bit wider, sizing to the 159 is your best bet, IMO. At 225lbs, I would be leaning more to the 162. At 210lbs, I’d still be more inclined to lean towards the 159, but only just and the 162 wouldn’t be a wrong choice then either. I’d be 60/40 towards the 159 at 210lbs. At 200lbs, more like 80/20 to the 159. At 225lbs, more like 80/20 towards the 162.
Hope this helps
I’m a classic over thinker. Realistically it’s only a 3 cm difference between the two boards I’m looking at though I guess wider also. Will it make that huge of a difference? Fwiw I’m far from advanced so I feel the 159 will be better due to that fact. Plus I think it will be more playful overall which is what I want. I’m just out to have fun.
Hi Ricky
Yeah, given you’re looking for more playful and more intermediate, I would go 159. 3cm makes more difference than you’d think. It’s not a mind bending difference, but it’s more noticeable than you’d think. I used to think the same, but after testing identical boards head to head in different sizes a few times (sometimes even only 2cm difference), you do notice the difference. Obviously the bigger the size difference the more effect it has, but even 2cm you can notice.
Hi Nate, I need some advice choosing between the Yes Standard vs Yes Greats.
Here’s the context: I’m an intermediate rider in the Midwest, mostly icy groomers. I’m looking for the best All-Mountain experience that will help me evolve at the park as well. I’m especially looking for pop off medium-sized kickers, and small side hits. Something smooth and fun to carve, comfortable and forgiving. Not likely to catch an edge in uneven terrain.
Which of these two boards do you recommend?
Thanks in advance,
Troy Winslow (Wisconsin)
Hi Troy
Thanks for your message.
I think both would treat you really well, but here’s some things to see if can help you to make your decision.
1. The Greats, IMO, is a little better for anything park related. Both will do the job there, but the greats would get my tick as the better board for the park, jumps, side hits etc
2. Both are really good in icy conditions, in my experience. If I had to choose one that was better over the other, I would say the Greats, but I wouldn’t take that into account as both are really good in that respect
3. I slightly prefer the Greats for carving (like proper carves). It’s got that little bit more of a camber dominant profile – and I just find I can rail carves a little harder on it. The asymmetry might help there too. But again, the Standard is pretty good for carving. There’s not a big difference, but my preference for carving would be the Greats.
4. The Standard is less likely to catch an edge. The Greats isn’t catchy by any means, but the Standard is a little more forgiving of skidded turns and a little more forgiving of errors in terms of catching an edge.
If you’re going to be seeing any significant powder, I think I would go Standard. Or if the edge-catching is a bigger priority than carving/park performance (again, I don’t find the Greats to be a catchy board, just more so than the Standard). But if you’re not going to be seeing significant powder and carving/park performance is more important, then I would be leaning Greats.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! One more question… you listed the Yes Greats and the Proto Slinger as both great freestyle boards. What does the Yes Greats have that the Proto Slinger can’t do? I’ve heard they’re both great all over the mountain… (except pow, of course)!
Hi Troy
The Proto Slinger is quite a bit softer than the Greats. It’s what I feel as 3.5/10 in terms of flex. It’s quite a different board to the Greats, IMO. Different shape – more traditional in terms of it’s width. And in terms of performance, it’s more buttery and better for jibs than the Greats, but not as good for big carves and not as stable at speed. For medium kickers and side hits, it’s awesome though. Not quite as good for bigger jumps as the Greats, but it’s good more pop than the Greats, IMO.
Even though it’s predominantly camber, it’s pretty hard to catch an edge on. More catch free than the Greats, IMO (and again, the Greats isn’t a catchy board). And in terms of carving, it’s pretty fun on shorter/sharper, slower carves, but not as good for bigger carves or higher speed carves, IMO.
So yeah, I think if you’re willing to sacrifice a bit of stability at speed for a bit more forgiveness and are OK with that softer flex, then it could definitely fit what your describing well. But certainly quite a different ride to the Greats.
Hi Nate,
been reading your reviews for a long time now and always love ’em. By far the most informative and consistent out there!
Currently struggling to find myself again on the hill after a few years away. I don’t really ride park, and these days with how much I can get away it’s mainly groomers and cruising the resort, hitting jumps etc and otherwise bombing and getting some nice carves. I don’t seek powder unless it’s there…blasphemous!
For that reason I wound up with a NS Ripsaw in 2018, having had a Yes Greats 2017 before that.
The Greats I loved at the time. Nimble and quick and I remember loving the asym (whether in my head or not!). I didn’t use it for Freestyle other than jumping about but I still enjoyed it. But I put on a lot of size and strength and physically outgrew it.
So I got something far heavier and more aggressive in the Ripsaw which, at the time, was amazing. But now, after a couple of years, having lost that size and strength, it suddenly feels far too hard to ride and enjoy consistently. It can be so much effort to turn and trying to slow down and chill at all, even to gaze at the scenery whilst riding slow with some mates, is more work than it should be.
I used to ride the Greats 2017 156 with Burton Cartel Re:Flex and Thirtytwo Lashed.
Now I ride the Ripsaw 159 with Rome DODs and Thirtytwo 3XDs. I feel that part of my issue is the sheer weight difference in the setup as well as the fact I lost weight myself, meaning the Ripsaw became even more work.
So now I’m thinking I want that perfect middle ground again. I’ll be keeping the boots and bindings but I want a board that is FUN and can be slowed down with, but also carves and holds an edge really well and can at least fly at a good old speed (the Ripsaw is super quick for a twin, but even anything close would be nice). Again, I’m primarily riding groomers.
FINALLY MY QUESTION:
Since the Yes Greats has reportedly changed a lot since my old one with the new Mid Bite tech and whatnot, I’ve considered trying it again. If it really holds that edge and carves as well as they say whilst still being a fun board to ride at any pace, I’m down.
But I also think the same of the Standard.
And I’m also considering the Capita Mercury.
Given everything I’ve said, moving back from an overly stiff and aggressive Ripsaw and yet still wanting something more than just middle of the road, would you recommend any of these three and if so what are the benefits I would have do you think?
I love the idea of getting an Asym again but no idea if it’s the old placebo effect!
Oh, and I’m an all round intermediate.
Massive thanks for reading all this and any help you can give!!
Cheers man,
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Ripsaw is pretty aggressive and quite stiff, so if you’ve lost weight and are looking to ride more casually at times now, I definitely get it. The Ripsaw wants you to ride it hard all the time and can be punishing if you want to be a bit more casual on it. I think you’re on the right track with the boards you’ve mentioned – getting a little more playful, but still something you can ride at speed and carve. The Greats is one of the better carvers for it’s flex and shape. Carves a little better than the Standard, IMO. There’s not a lot in it, but I put just over for carving – and it’s pretty good at speed too. I rate it 3.5/5 but borderline 4/5. Standard maybe just a touch better at speed, but they’re very close. Not quite as good at speed as the Ripsaw, for sure, but it’s never going to be when you’re shedding that much stiffness.
The Mercury is, IMO, just a little stiffer than the Greats and Standard. It’s what I would call 6.5/10 in terms of flex, so still certainly softer than the Ripsaw. But it’s good on a carve and good at speed. Again not Ripsaw speed, but it’s not all that far off. The Mercury is particularly light, so if lightness is a consideration, then that’s something to consider. It’s as good at riding slow or being playful as the Greats or Standard, IMO, but it will still be better in that respect than the Ripsaw.
I really like asym boards. And I’ve certainly also considered whether or not it’s a placebo effect, but it’s hard to say. I consistently find asym better for riding switch, so my instinct is that it’s more than just placebo.
Greats now definitely holds an edge better than the 2017 model and it’s my go to in my quiver for hard/icy conditions. It’s really good for those conditions – the Standard is also. The Mercury isn’t bad in that respect, but not as good as Greats/Standard, IMO.
Hope this helps
Oh and if you’d like a sizing opinion, happy to give one. Would just need your height, weight and boot size.
Hi Nate,
massive tha is for the reply there, really helpful!
I’m 5ft 8″, 175-182lbs generally and boot size US 10.
I feel like the Mercury may be that middle ground of what I’m looking for (good speed and carving but still possible to slow it down when needed and not super unforgiving, from what I read) and so am considering the 157. Do you think this would be about right for me?
Also, with the increased widths of the new Yes boards, what would you reccomend for those? Possibly a 154 for the Greats? What about the Standard?
Many thanks man,
Nick
Hi Nick
Yeah, I agree, the 157 is probably your best bet with the Mercury.
For the Greats I would say 154 for sure. For the Standard I would up it to the 156. Standard has a little less effective edge – and it’s also marginally narrower than the Greats, so I probably wouldn’t quite go down to the 153 for the Standard.
Hello, first off THANK YOU for doing what you do.
I am looking to replace my DOA with the Yes Standard. I am allmountain/freestyle always looking for natural features to spin off, and doing lots of flat ground butters, nose rolls, switch riding.
My question is which size youd recommend if I enjoy buttering quite a bit. Im 5’10, 190, size 12 boot.
I was debating the 159 vs the 162… should I go with the 162 so that my weight isnt too high and I dont over bend the board for butters? My DOA had lots of resistance and I could comfortably put my weight over the tail and not have it wash out.
Thanks again and I will be looking to purchase through your links if possible. Your awesome!
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I would be looking at the 159 for your specs and how you describe your riding. The Standard is a little easier to butter than the DOA, so I get your concern for overbending, but whilst the Standard is pretty buttery, it’s still not overall a soft board or anything – so there’s definitely some resistance to press against there still. For your specs and style I think 159 overall will be the better size. But if you could also let me know the size of your DOA? I’m guessing it’s either 158W or 161W? Unless you have the 2021 model, in which case maybe 159W? In any case, if you could let me know the size, then I can have a better think about how different it will be to butter versus your current board.
I had the 158W for the 2017 DOA. It was sad to let go of the DOA but from all your detailed responses it looks like the standard is going to be a blast for how I ride.
Im interested to see how the pop will compare between the boards, and how the Standard feels for edge to edge speed in the trees. I forsee them being very similar given my wide board before and my size 12 boots.
Thanks again for your response and all you do!
Thanks Joe. Yeah, I think 159 for sure for the Standard for you. And yeah probably very similar in terms of edge to edge speed in the trees, I would say. The Standard 159 is wider than the 158W DOA, but I found it nimble for how wide it is, and with 12s, I would predict a similar overall edge to edge speed to the 158W.
Hey Nate. Mate I love the reviews. I just read them for fun!
I was curious what you thought. I have a 156 2021 standard. Just wondering if that’s what you would recommend size wise. I’ve ridden it twice in spring conditions a mix of ice and spring corn in NZ last year. Just picked it up at the end of the season. I’m 76kg, size 9.5 us ions and 5’10. I ride a 158 custom Flying V and a 2011 159 trs c2btx and a 156 hovercraft split in japan. I felt like sizing down to the 153 was too much, as powder performance is important to me. But I keep looking at it and thinking dam it’s wide. But riding I didn’t notice any issues. The edge hold is amazing and turn initiation seemed on point. I think I’m over thinking the waist width issue, however the goodride guy was pretty uncomplimentary about it’s turning speed and performance in general. I bought it after reading your review and the number one ranking and am glad I did..
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message. Must be getting close to starting your season in NZ?!
Size-wise for the Standard, I would have being weighing up the 153 and 156. And between those size would have depended on how you were looking to ride it. If you wanted to ride predominantly park/freestyle and/or a lot of trees, then I would have been leaning 153. But if stability at speed, carving and float in powder were more important, then I would have been leaning 156.
For me I find the 156 just right – with fairly similar specs to you (6’0″, ~80kg, size 10 typically but sometimes 9.5, sometimes 10.5, depending on brand). I’ve never found it to be a particularly slow turner. Not like I’ve found with some other wider boards. I wouldn’t say it’s up there with the quickest turners that I’ve ridden, but far from being a slow turner or anything, from my experience. I would typically ride a board like the Standard at around 158/159 and found sizing down to 156 was enough to counter the width. I wouldn’t ride the 159 in the Standard, which I would with other similar boards that are narrower, but I didn’t feel I needed to size down anymore than to the 156. And I spend a fair bit of time riding trees, park/freestyle, as well as opening out on the groomers, getting into powder when available of course and laying down some good carves.
So yeah, long story short, I think that size is fine for you – it’s what I go with, and whilst you’re specs aren’t exactly mine, they’re pretty close and unless you’re predominantly using it for trees and/or park, I think 156 is the best size for you.
Hey Nate. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Mt Hutt opened yesterday and Cardrona I believe this weekend. Might need to get out the splitboard to escape the crowds this season is going to be busy.
I kind of went through the same thought experiment and came to the same conclusion about the 156.
Also from the 2 days riding I felt pretty happy with the turning speed. I might give you a midseason update.
Have a great summer.
Cheers from NZ.
Chris.
Hey Chris.
Yeah that’d be great to get a mid-season update. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
Would you be able to help me pick out a board? I’m a little stuck between the Yes Typo and the Yes Standard
I’m a 21 year old who hasn’t ridden in about 7-8 years, but from what I remember, I was about a beginner/intermediate rider (but closer to beginner than intermediate). I could ride pretty comfortably, but never learned to ride switch unfortunately.
I’m hoping to pick up a board that can do it all, but more resort focused. I also don’t want it to be too difficult in learning to ride comfortably again/switch, but something that I won’t grow out of too quickly and can still keep when as I get better.
My first choice would be the Typo, but given that I’m not able to find any in stock, I thought maybe the Standard would be a good alternative, but I’m open to any other boards you might suggest.
I’m about 5’7, 165lb and size 8.5-9 US boot
Thanks in advance!
Hi Des
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would definitely leaning Typo. The Standard isn’t an overly technical/difficult ride or anything, but will be a noticeably more difficult progression. And the Typo is something that you shouldn’t grow out of too fast. Also, in terms of sizing, the Typo is better for your specs, IMO. The Standard is quite wide for 8.5-9s, so you’d probably want to size down quite a bit in length to compensate for that.
Size-wise, I think the 155 Typo would be a really good size for you. For the Standard you’d want to size down to the 151, IMO. I think it would work in that size. But when you have to size down that much in length, you’re shaving off quite a bit of effective edge.
I would check out the following list, which I made specifically for those looking for a high-end beginner to low intermediate level board, that they won’t grow out of too soon:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
You’ll see the Typo is on the list.
Hope this helps.
Awesome thanks for the advice Nate! I accidentally posted this comment on your Typo review as well, so feel free to ignore that one!
You’re very welcome Des. Yeah saw the other one too, but didn’t have any info this one didn’t have, so I just deleted it, for tidiness.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to pick this up for the New Zealand winter this year to replace my ancient Nitro T1. I don’t spend much, if any time in the park but still want something a little playful for the rest of the mountain. We also very rarely get decent amounts of powder here and most of the time it’s groomed tracks and ice. Our choices for boards can be quite limited too.
Anyway I’m just worried about the size of the board, I’m 5’11, ~154lb, and wear size 11 boots. For some reason I always seem to size up with snowboard boots. Weight wise the 153 seems the best fit but I’m worried about boot overhang. Any suggestions or recommendations for other boards? I was also looking at a Capita Mercury.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
The Standard is a little wider than it looks, when just looking at the waist width, but still might be pushing it a little on the 153, in terms of overhang. The 153 will be around 265mm at the inserts, which in some cases you might be able to get away with with 11s, but it’s borderline. If you have low profile boots, binding angles +15/-15 or similar (a decent amount of angle on the back foot) and don’t carve too aggressively (i.e. carving deep, e.g. eurocarving), then you would likely be fine width-wise, but you’d probably want all of those things in place to get away with it.
The 156 is possibility. I wouldn’t typically recommend it with your weight, if your boot size was smaller. But given your boot size, then the 156 won’t be overly wide for you – and 156 at the right width isn’t a bad length, if you’re not doing a lot of freestyle riding. That said, if you feel like your feet are small for size 11, then that’s something else to consider – because it’s your feet that provide leverage to the edges. So when we’re talking about going too wide, it’s referring to too wide for your feet. Too narrow is in relation to boots (if that makes sense! – I can explain that further if it doesn’t make sense).
The Mercury is going to be narrower, even if you went to the 155 (and I wouldn’t go any longer than that for your specs for the Mercury). The 155 is 255 at the waist (versus 253 at the waist of the 153 Standard) but it’s only around 263mm at the inserts, so you’ve actually got less leeway. Between the Standard 153 and Mercury 155 (or 153), I would go Standard 153.
If you don’t get that much powder, I would also consider the YES Greats 154. I think that would be a really good size for you. It’s a little wider than the 153 Standard – it’s around 270mm at the inserts, which I would be pretty confident with with 11s, depending on the profile of your boots, binding angles and how aggressive you carve, but in this case you wouldn’t have to be as strict on those things as there’s more leeway.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the detailed reply, it really does help. That also makes sense regarding foot size vs shoe size, my feet are around 27cm-27.5cm in length and boots (Burton Photon Wides) roughly 33cm long.
Sounds like both boards are kind of out of the running but I’ll check out the YES Greats. I have also just noticed the Jones Mountain Twin comes in a 156W, would that be a good enough fit?
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike
I think ideally you’d be in smaller boots and go regular width with 27-27.5cm feet. But all feet are different, even when at the same length and sometimes you don’t fit in the boots that the mondo was designed for – based purely on foot size, I would have thought you’d get into a size 10 Burton boot. But like I say, feet are a bit strange and fit different. If you were in a smaller boot, the likes of the Mountain Twin 154 and Standard 153 would be ideal.
But given your boot size, I think the 156W would work. It’s a good length for you, IMO. It’s on the wider side for your foot size, so not ideal, but it’s not so wide that your feet will be swimming inside the edges, so I think that’s a good bet, and a safer bet, if you want to avoid boot drag. The Mountain Twin is a really nice versatile board too, than is really consistently good in pretty much any conditions and any type of riding, so it’s a solid all round choice, IMO.
Cheers Nate, I actually took my boots back to the store today to double check and they seem to think the 11 is a good size. My left foot is a little bigger and actually looks closer to 28cm. I’m probably somewhere between 10.5 and 11.
Anyway I’ve gone with the 156W Mountain Twin and it arrives in a few weeks. Thanks for the help mate!
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope the board treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nat, thanks for the awesome review. I’m 6’ (183cm) tall and 160lbs. Wearing a burton US size 9. My local store only has the standard in 156, wondering if that would work for me. I’m a intermediate trying to progress, currently riding a Jones frontier 159. Is the yes standard a better board for me? I’m trying to improve my carve and not doing any park.
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 could be doable for you – and probably the closest equivalent size to the 159 Frontier. So, if you felt like the 159 Frontier was about right size-wise, then 156 Standard would be your best bet. But if you felt like the 159 Frontier is a little big, then 153 is probably the better bet for the Standard. In saying all of that, I think the Frontier is a good option for what you’re describing (Intermediate trying to progress and not doing any park), so if you like the Frontier, then there’s no reason to change. If you feel like you want something else, then the Standard would certainly work too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! I do find the 159 frontier hard to turn sometimes, especially when I’m going to steeper slopes. Not sure if that’s me being lack of skills or the board being too long. I can’t find any Standard in 153 but I do find one in 151. That would be too short right?
Hi Peter
Yeah, unfortunately I think the 151 would be going too short.
Thanks Nate. I ended up finding a 153 on sale in my local store. I currently have the burton Genesis Bindings and the burton swath boots, wondering they are good match with the yes standard. I was planning to upgrade my boots to either burton Photon, or Vans Aura Pro. Do you have any recommendation for the boots? Thanks!
Hi Peter
Nice one on finding the 153 on sale! I think the Genesis and Swath match pretty well with the Standard, so if you didn’t want to change, they are going to work fine, IMO. If you wanted to get really picking, something a little stiffer would be ideal. Around 6/10 to 7/10 flex would be the ideal, IMO. I rate the Genesis 5/10 flex and the Swath also 5/10 flex. The Aura Pro also feel more like 5/10 flex to me, so don’t think that would be worth changing to, IMO, assuming your Swath are still in good condition? The Photon more like 7/10, so if you were going to make a change, I would be leaning towards them. But if you’re Swath are in good condition still, they’re not a major mismatch with the Standard or anything.
Hey Nate, what’s the difference between the Yes Basic, Yes Typo, and Yes Standard? I can’t really find the comparisons anywhere…
Hi Jay D
Thanks for your message.
The Basic and Typo are quite similar, but the main differences are:
– Typo has a 2-4-2 camrock profile versus the 4-4-4 camrock profile on the Basic – essentially means there is more rocker in the profile on the Basic than the Typo
– Small (5mm) setback stance on the Typo
– Sintered spec (kind of in between sintered and extruded) base on the Typo versus extruded base on the Basic
– The Typo is a little stiffer flexing than the Basic. It’s not massively stiffer, but it is a little stiffer
The Standard is different in a few more ways:
– 3-4-3 camber profile
– stiffer (6/10 versus 4.5/10 on the Typo and 4/10 on the Basic)
– Directional Volume Twin shape
– Sintered base (full sintered)
– Different core, different glass
– has mid-bite – and it is quite a bit wider than the Basic and Typo
– different effective edge (relative to overall length)
– different sidecut
– basically a lot of differences. Where the Basic and Typo are quite similar in a lot of aspects, the Standard is different in almost every one of those aspects
Hope this helps
What bindings do you recommend for the Yes Standard?
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
For the Standard, I would be looking at anything around 6/10 to 7/10 in terms of flex. My picks in those flex ranges are, in order:
6/10 flex
Union Strata
K2 Lien AT
Burton Cartel
Union Force
7/10 flex
Union Falcor
Flux XF
Burton Cartel X
Union Atlas
Salomon Highlander
I know that’s a good few options, but anything there would work well with the Standard, IMO. I have reviews on the site for all of those if you wanted to check out the relative strengths and weaknesses of each to see which might suit you best, but all should be a good match to the Standard, IMO
Hope this helps
Nate, which bindings would you put on a Yes the Greats: Now X Yes or Burton Cartel?
Hi Jay
I’d go Cartel personally. Just that I find it the better all round binding. Better board feel for buttering, similar response. Given that the Greats is a wider board – if you’re riding Medium bindings, then the X YES will give you a little more leverage on the edges, as it has a longer baseplate. So that’s definitely one plus of the X YES over the Cartel on this particular board. The X YES has better shock absorption, but the Cartel isn’t bad in that department. Both would match with the Greats, IMO, but I would personally go for the Cartel. If board feel isn’t that important to you, then the X YES is a good option too though.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! Would you give the Cartel the nod over the Now X Yes on the Standard as well? I ride a medium size.
Hi Jay
Yeah, same applies for the YES Standard for me. Again, if you’re not too fussy over board feel and you want that little bit more leverage, then that might sway you to the X YES. Personally I like to have good board feel and would prioritize it over that extra leverage. Also to note, that the leverage you get from a longer baseplate is relatively subtle, IMO, as that leverage predominantly comes from your feet.
Would the Strata mini discs work for the Standard?
Hi Jay
It works for the regular inserts – but not for the slam back inserts. So if you were wanting to setup on the slam back inserts, then you wouldn’t be able to with the Strata (or any binding with a mini-disc) unfortunately.
Hi Nate,
I used to ride a 2017 DOA for the past few yrs (5-6 times a yr) and this year I want to try something more lively and fun. Brought a used 2019 Capita OS Living and really like the feel compared to DOA. It is coming to season end and I want to get a new 2021 board for next season and I am looking at the YES Standard. What do you think of switching from Capita OS Living to YES Standard? or if you have other suggestions, please advise. thanks!
5’11, 180lb, intemediate rider.
Hi Wing
Thanks for your message.
It depends on how you want your riding to be. Between the OSL and the Standard, the Standard is a little stiffer, not quite as easy going/playful as the OSL. But still quite easy to butter, and certainly lively. But I would say that the OSL is more playful. If you were wanting a more playful ride or an equally playful ride, then there are other’s that might suit your needs better. But the Standard is certainly lively.
The Standard will be just as good for carving, jumps, spins, butters, and almost as good for riding switch. It will give you more stability at speed and be better in powder, IMO.
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your boot size, that would help to determine the best size.
Hope this helps
thanks for the comments! I kind of want more stability when I am at a higher speed. I found that the OSL is a little bit choppy when I get up to decent speed. My boot size is addias 10 with union force binding, thanks!
Hi Wing
The Standard should provide better stability at speed for you (from my experience). Still not as stable at speed as much stiffer boards, but if you didn’t want to go too much stiffer, but gain a little in terms of stability at speed, it’s a good way to go, IMO.
Size-wise, I would go 156 for the Standard with your specs.
Thanks so much for the review. Aside from the YES STANDARD, any other board I should look at?
Hi Wing
Given that it sounds like you don’t want anything too aggressive, but want a bit more stability at speed versus the OSL, I think the Standard is a really good option. You could also go Capita Mercury or Niche Story if you wanted something a little more aggressive, or something like the Assassin Pro or Niche Crux. But I think the Standard would be a good option for what you’re describing.
Hi Nate,
I am looking for a YES STANDARD right now. However, I can only locate a 153. Will it still be ok for my specs?
Hi Wing
I wouldn’t go as short as that in the Standard for your specs. The 156 is already sizing down for your specs (taking into account the width, it’s a good size down). So whilst I think it’s good to size down a little with this board with size 10s, taking into account width, going down to 153 would be sizing down too far – especially considering that the 153 is narrower too.
Thanks Nate!! I found a 156 =)
You’re very welcome Wing. Awesome that you found the 156!
I’m torn between the 153 and the 156. I’m 5’9, weigh 168 pounds, and my boot sizes are 9/9.5.
I usually do a little bit of everything but really enjoy powder and tree runs. What size do you recommend?
Hi Hec
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I would be leaning towards the 153. It’s a trade off, as the 156 will float better in powder for you, but the 153 will be better in trees. And just overall I think 153 would be preferable for everyday riding on groomers too.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate.
Im intermediate rider.Jm riding powder and carving usually.Which one do you prefer forme.Jones MT or Yes Standart.
My second question which size ?
İm 6.0 , 190 lbs and Us size 11.5 .
Thanks you .
Hi Kerim
Thanks for your message.
There’s definitely not a wrong choice between those 2, based on what you’re describing. If I had to choose one for carving, I think I’d go Standard, but really very little in it. For powder, the Mountain Twin is a little better in it’s reference stance than the Standard, but the Standard has those slam back inserts which make it as good when you use those. If you didn’t think you would be bothered to shift your bindings back on a pow day, then I’d say the Mountain Twin in reference is a little better versus the Standard in reference for powder.
Size-wise, I’d say 159W for the MT and 159 for the Standard would be just right for your specs.
Hope this helps
Dear Nate,
First of all thanks for your reviews. I’ve had a crush on the Yes.Standard for a while now, since a friend of mine has it and always speaks wonders of it. I just found it on sale and was wondering what size to pick. I’m an atypical rider.. 6’6” around 211 lb and 10,5 foot size. Been riding most of my boards 160 (Rome Slash for example) and lately a skate banana 1,59 and I plan to leave it for the park and get a new deck to carve and hit jumps since the skate banana washes out terribly for me both in landings and carves. With all this, what size would you advice for me?? Im thinking 162.
I stay put for you comments, thanks in advance.
Cheers!
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for you for the Standard, I think it’s between 162 and 159. Probably leaning 162. The 162 and 159 are on the wide-side for your boots, but for your specs, I think you could ride up to a 165. With a board on the wider side like this, it’s a good idea to size down a bit. So I think going 162 is a size-down for you and gives you that longer size to complement your 159 Skate Banana. The reason I consider the 159 as well, is that it sounds like you’re used to something around 160, so compared to what you’re used to 162 is sizing up rather than down. So, if you think you’d prefer something more similar to what you’re used to, then 159 is certainly an option. Some things to consider:
– The 159 will be more agile, feel a little softer flexing and generally be more playful and nimble. Better for spins and boxes/rails, IMO
– The 162 will give you more stability at speed, better for landing big jumps, and give you more float in powder.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you Nate you are the boss!!
Im tilting towards the 162, but, just tried a Capita DOA 161w (half a cm narrower that the yes.Standard) and I was completely blown away, so I’ve to think it through but I will let you know what I end up doing. Yes is not a brand that I really know well and would love to give it a try.
Cheers!
You’re very welcome Jay. Look forward to hearing what you go with.
Dear Nate,
Ended up getting my own DOA and I’m enjoying a lot. It is really letting me unlock aspects of my riding that the skate banana couldn’t. I deffinetly keep Yes. As a brand to try in the future tho.
Thank you so much for your attention and time.
Cheers!
Hi Jay
Thanks for the update. Awesome that you got your new board and that you’re enjoying it!
Hey Nate,
5′ 9″, 155 lbs, boot size 9.5-10 depending on company, been riding for 20+ years, but only get 5-10 days max a season. I’d say I’m advanced at best, no expert here. Was looking at YES. Standard vs. PYL, but can’t make up my mind. From the west coast, living on the east coast, so hit up what I can in WV and PA, but visit my brother in Bend, OR and hit Mt. Bachelor about once a year on top of maybe one other trip like Tahoe with wife’s family.
Search for powder wherever I can, but my destinations may not deliver enough of it to warrant the PYL. Stuck between what I’d like (PYL) and what I think I should get (Standard) for a one-board quiver. Any thoughts/insight or clarifying questions that could help?
Finally, want to get all new gear (it’s been ~10 years). So would be curious of thoughts on bindings and boots to compliment whichever board you’d recommend.
Thanks in advance, dude!
Charlie
Hi Charlie
Thanks for your message.
If you think you’d prefer your board to be closer to medium flexing and if you ride some freestyle stuff – riding switch, sidehits/jumps and/or buttering and/or park, then I think the Standard is your best bet. If you’re not getting that much powder, the Standard can certainly handle powder pretty well too, particularly if you set it back into the slam back inserts.
But if you’d prefer or are good with medium-stiff flex, ride one-direction pretty much exclusively and don’t really do park and are an advanced rider, then I would be leaning PYL, even if you don’t see that much powder.
Size-wise, for the PYL I think 156 would be perfect.
For the Standard, I think 153 would be the better bet. It’s a wider board and something I would size down for.
To match the Standard I would be looking at boots and bindings around 6/10 to 7/10 in terms of flex. Some options:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
For the PYL I’d be looking more like 7/10 to 9/10 in terms of flex. Some options:
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
Hope this helps
Nate – You’re a champ. Thanks for putting in the time and giving such a great answer. With your info, looks like it’s up to me now. I’ll message again once I’ve decided and let you know my rationale. Thanks again, dude.
Best, Charlie
You’re very welcome Charlie. Looking forward to hearing what you go with.
Hi Nate, so I ended up going for the 156 but I have about a 1.25 inch overhang on my heel side even moving my bindings as much as possible. I’m worried it could be a problem laying down a hard carve. Is that too much or am I just overthinking it? Thanks.
Hi Michael
I personally haven’t had heel drag issues going up to 1.2″ in heel overhang. Don’t remember trying as much as 1.25″ so I’m not sure. Just to make sure, are you measuring that overhang from the outside of the metal edge (as opposed to the edge of the top sheet)? Because it’s that metal edge that really matters. If so, it’s probably more than ideal but might be fine. Hard to say for sure. Also, how much toe overhang do you have out of curiosity? – I know you can’t get the boot further forward at this point. And is this with your 11.5 Burtons or 11 Adidas boots?
That’s with some 11 vans, the 11 adidas are slightly less. Measuring from the metal. I barely have any overhang at all toe side, less than a cm, which is good so I wish I could bump up the bindings more.
Hi Michael
Thanks for the details. Yeah it’s a shame you can’t bump up the bindings any more, because total overhang sounds like it’s in a really good range. What bindings and what size do you have?
Large. So I figured out if I pair it with union bindings I can adjust the heel cup, which the Burton doesn’t have, to push the boot forward just a tad and even it out and it should be perfect.
Hi Michael.
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah with Burton there’s no heel cup adjustment and even their large bindings tend to not have that long a baseplate/footbed. Union does allow you to adjust the heel cup, so yeah, if you’re happy to change up your bindings, I think that would be a good way to go.
Hi Nate,
I’m relatively new to Snowboarding and this is my 2nd season. I’m 5’11, size 10.5 (10 in Adidas ADV) 200-205lbs. I had a GNU Hyak 160cm which I struggled to turn with and recently bought a 158cm Yes Typo after reading your review. I have to say that my confidence quickly grew and I am now on graduating to blue runs. However, I still find it a little long as while its not super difficult to turn, there are times I wished I could turn faster.
So I’m now considering the Yes Standard 153cm or the Never Summer Snowtrooper 154cm – taking off 3-5cm as a beginner. (both 253mm width which is just nice for my boots).
1. Are those too short or should I consider the 156 Standard / 156 Snowtrooper? my aim is to build confidence and progress faster so as I can enjoy the mountain.
2. between the NS Snowtrooper and standard, which would you recommend?
Thank you.
Hi Gabriel
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the Snowtrooper is the better option, and a really good option for a high-end beginner, IMO. Size-wise, though, I would go 156. 156 is already taking off 5cm, IMO, so I wouldn’t go shorter than that. The width on the Snowtrooper 156, with 10s, should be a really good fit too.
The Standard is a little more advanced and whilst going down to 153 will make it easier to handle, I’d still be leaning Snowtrooper 156. Also to note, that the Standard 153 is still wider than the Snowtrooper 156. It’s wider at the inserts versus the waist than something like the snowtrooper, so overall wider. I would actually sooner go 155 Typo before 153 Standard for what you’re describing. I think you could work the 153 Standard, but given your goals, I would say 155 Typo or 156 Snowtrooper. And I would be leaning 156 Snowtrooper in this case, particular since you already have the Typo in 158.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate,
Thanks for your quick response and appreciate your advice.
I managed to let go my Typo to a buddy and will look at the NS Snowtrooper.
Your reviews help a lot and wished I knew about your site before I got my gears.
You’re very welcome Gabriel. Happy riding!
HI Nate,
Firstly, thank you for your reviews and advice as it helped my progression greatly. I can say your reviews are accurate and that means a lot of many of us at the crossroads of investing in a board.
As you recall, I was just good beginner weeks ago when I struggle with my 160cm GNU Hyak and got better with the Yes Typo 158cm (which I deemed a little long, then). Instead of the NS Snowtrooper, I got the Yes Standard and boy, in a matter of weeks, I was able to build the confidence and ride down blacks. The standard’s firmness helped a lot especially when on flatter and bumpier terrains as it just pave the way and never once caught an edge.
Im working on moguls now and the 153cm is easy to turn & now I’m dreading if I should have gotten a size larger. I went back to my old GNU 160cm the other day and could ride them easily – thought they were too soft and in many instances, caught an edge where the standard didn’t.
Anyways, to those, like me, who struggled to find the right board, if you are a good beginner and looking to progress, this board is absolutely a great investment. Im 5’11 and 195lbs (lost some lbs with all those weeks practice) and I think a size larger than 153 will still be manageable.
Just my 2 cents back to the community from my experience and your guidance as i wished I had come across your site before my first board purchase.
(I’m now looking at some carve boards, hope you can review the Jones Hovercraft or Ultracraft. ; ) cheers!
Hi Gabriel
Thanks for your feedback/insight. Much appreciated. Happy riding!
Hey man, so looking at the yes standard. This will be a first board for me and I’m a beginner but I’m willing to put in the effort to get it done. I’m torn between 159 and 162. I’m 220 pounds but trying to get under 200 by summer and I’m an 11 boot. Thoughts on size for my first board. I want to kinda do it all but I’m not gonna hit some crazy huge jumps. Just some smaller stuff. Thanks.
Hi Ricky
Thanks for your message.
Not something I would typically recommend for a beginner, but if you do go for this one, I think the 159 is your best bet for sure. Even as an advanced rider I would say 159 for your specs assuming around 200lbs. At 220lbs, maybe the 162, but as a beginner, I would go 159. Which might work out well for you, if you start out 220 on the 159 and it feels softer than it would at 200lbs. Then once you loose that weight you’ll hopefully be at a more advanced level where the 159 won’t become too much board, if that makes sense. So whilst, I think it’s not the ideal choice as a beginner board, if you’re set on it, it could work out, but I would definitely go 159.
Hope this helps
Awesome, helpful reviews!
I am looking to get a new all-mountain board because I am over powering the softer board I currently have. I have been stuck between a few different boards, but it seems like the Yes. Standard might be best. I am an upper-intermediate level rider that likes to do a bit of everything, but prefer going fast and hitting natural jumps than park riding. I ride mainly on the East Coast in PA, NY where it is pretty icy and sometimes go out West. I am 6’1, 195lbs, and size 12 Burton boot.
Do you think the Standard would be the right choice, and would a 159cm be a good size?
Thank you!
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the Standard would work for what you’re describing for sure. Just so long as you’re not expecting anything super stiff or anything. It’s a 6/10 flexing board, IMO, so just at the stiffer side of medium. Definitely a good do-it-all board and I think it will suit what you’re describing, just so long as you’re not expecting anything super stiff.
Size-wise, I think it’s a weight up between the 159 and 162. I think I would be leaning 159, but 162 certainly wouldn’t be wrong for you either. 162 would give you more stability at speed and better float in powder. The 159 more maneuverable, better for trees, a little more forgiving when riding slower and better for butters and jumps (unless you’re hitting really big jumps).
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for the advice. Went ahead and ordered the 159!
Love the site and all the reviews!
You’re very welcome Nick. Thanks for visiting the site. Hope the board treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hey Nate, I was thinking about getting a freeride board but I don’t think I use it enough for Bowls, trees, and Powder, so I’m looking for a more aggressive and stiffer all mountain board then the two all mountain medium flex boards that I own ( 2019 Proto 2 154, 2019 Outerspace Living 154) that can do Powder, tree runs and bowls when I go out to Colorado which is about 10 days a year. My riding style is I love to Carve on groomers ,basic butters and jumps off small side hits, but when I go to bigger resorts I want to be able to ride in bowls, trees and Powder. I don’t really bomb it flat base but I do want to be able to carve at higher speeds. I’m 5’9” 175, size 8 boot, I currently have the adidas sambas which getting adidas was a mistake because they leave smaller footprint, so I got the thirty two tm2s on the way. Will the 153 be suitable for me? I do want something quick edge to edge, and want to be able to ride slow also. I had the warpig 148 and I hated it because it was too wide for my size 8 and with the adidas sambas not helping it either. Will this board suit my needs, I also was looking into the Capita Mercury 155 too. Thanks again for all your content and input, its sooo helpful.
Hi Peter
The Standard is a little stiffer than the 2 boards you have currently, but not massively so. I’d say the Standard feels like a 6/10, with the PT2 and OSL feeling more like 5/10. So if you want to just go subtly stiffer, then it’s a good choice. Does also give you a bit more in powder (particularly so, if you put it in the slam back inserts). And a little more at speed too. So definitely a subtle improvement in those areas.
I think length-wise going longer than 153 would be ideal, but since the board is going to be very wide in the 156 for your feet, then the 153 probably does make more sense. The 153 is still going to be wider than your current boards, but sizing down should help being back that maneuverability for trees/riding slow. For reference, the 153 is probably around 265mm at the inserts versus the PT2 154, which is more like 258-259mm and the OSL 154 more like 258-259mm as well.
Having a narrower waist does help with maneuverability as well though, so with the narrower waist and coupled with the narrow width at inserts compared to the 148 Warpig, it’s overall definitely more suitable for your foot size than the Warpig – even with going that much shorter, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Nate – great reviews, much appreciated. Really deciding between a few boards: Standard, ejack knife, assassin pro, and the Mercury (no need to go over that one again since it’s in here 10 times). Do a lot of everything except park. Bombing, tons of trees, side hits, love powder obviously. Been on a skeleton key but when the conditions aren’t perfect it’s really not enjoyable. Also can’t stand the channel. Looking for something that takes care of those harder packed days that I can still go hard with minimal chatter and through the trees with confidence. Thanks man.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be leaning Standard or Ejack Knife – the better bets in hard conditions and good in trees and powder. The Assassin Pro everything except powder. Still not bad in powder but not quite as good. Mercury the least agile at slow speed of that lot, IMO, so the trees thing not ideal. Really good in trees when there’s powder. Something about the Mercury it becomes more agile in powder than in non-powder conditions (more so than other boards).
Ejack versus Standard. Ejack a little better at bombing, a little better for powder. Standard better for side hits, riding switch etc. Getting the sizing right also important, but yeah assuming good sizing, I think I’d be weighing up those 2.
Hope this helps
I’m 5 10 180 11.5 in my Burton’s, 11 in my adidas. So really between the 156 and 159 standard. Don’t really have a choice with the ejack as I’d probably have to go 159w. I know the 156 would maybe be more fun and the 159 might be more stable but maybe not quite as nimble as I’d like
Hi Michael
I would be leaning 156 for the Standard. 159 definitely doable and would be more stable, but overall, I would be leaning 156 for your specs. You would sacrifice some for speed and powder but better for trees and sidehits. So it would definitely be a matter of which you wanted to optimize more.
The Ejack Knife 159W is actually a little narrower overall than the 159 Standard. The Standard 159 is roughly 275mm wide at the inserts versus the the 159W Ejack Knife which would be around 270mm at the inserts roughly. So, it is a little narrower, but still certainly wide enough for your boots. I think it’s a good width for your sized boots and the length works too. Again, you would be looking still at it being less nimble than the 156 Standard, but it’s kind of in between the 159 Standard and 156 Standard, size-wise. Still closer to the 159 Standard than the 156 Standard – and also a little stiffer. But just wanted to put that out there, because I think the 159W Ejack Knife is definitely a doable size for you. But so are the 156 and 159 Standard – with the stated pros and cons of each mentioned above.
Ordered the 156 Standard actually right before I read this. Went to a local board shop and they only had the 159 and I laid the 159 mercury over top of it and noticed the standard was a good bit wider at the inserts so it gave me confidence to go with the 156. Really appreciate all the help!
You’re very welcome Michael. And awesome that you’ve got your board ordered now. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi! I found this board on sale. Thou only in 156. I am 184cm an weigh about 80-85kg. Size on boots 9.
Last season i rode a 158 nitro beast but i didnt have too much fun on it (lol). Would you say 156 on the standard is good or should i size down on the board? Best regards, Albert
Hi Albert
Thanks for your message.
Typically for your specs, I’d say 158-160 for an all-mountain board, assuming a relatively advanced skill level. However, with size 9s on the Standard I think sizing down to the 156 is a good idea. It’s a little wider of a board, and sizing down helps. I’m similar specs – 183cm, 80kg, size 10 or 9.5 boots and I really like the Standard in 156, though I would typically ride/prefer 157-159 for all-mountain boards. So I think for this particular board, the 156 should be just right.
The Beast is a considerably stiffer/more aggressive ride (from what I’ve heard of it – it’s not a board I’ve ridden yet). So even in the same size, the Standard would be a more easy going ride. I imagine it’s the kind of board that you would want to always be driving hard and always being on your game on. Doesn’t strike me as a board with a lot of forgiveness. The Standard is like super soft/playful or anything, but it’s what I would consider right in the middle of playful/aggressive, if that makes sense. It’s got some forgiveness to it, but you can still bomb/lean into carves when you want to.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, your review on boot sizing really helped me pick the pair I own now, and I’ve been scrolling through your reviews since! Im after some trusted advise in regards to picking the right first board if you can help please.
I’m at an intermediate level of riding. Enjoy resorting, carving and side jumps along the way with occasional off piste. Not really into park, although I want to start learning switch and 180s in the near future (Freestyle purposes).
Height is 5ft 5, weight 67kg and boot size 8 UK.
I’m torn between the yes standard and mercury.. both seem like great boards, although unsure what one would suite me best for the description I’ve provided and what size to choose!
Any help would be much appreciated!
Many thanks
Kye
Hi Kye
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be leaning towards the Standard based on what you’re describing. Both would certainly work for everything you’ve said there, but I think as a first board, the Standard would just be that little bit more suitable, even if you’re already at that intermediate level – and also subtly better, IMO for switch/180s.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 151 Standard. I think that would be spot on. You could ride the 149 too – and that would be more freestyle friendly but if you’re not going in the park, I think the 151 is the better size.
If you went Mercury it would be 153, which would definitely work, but combination of length and width, it’s on the bigger end of what would work for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Really good review – I’m looking to purchase the Yes Standard now. Quick question from me, I’m 6’2″ at 180 lbs with 10.5 size boots. Would you recommend the 156 or 159 size board?
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Tight call between those 2 sizes for you. 156 is certainly sizing down for your specs, but being on the wider side for your boots, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just whether it’s sizing down too much. Even the 159 is a small size down, but it’s also wider still, so it’s whether that’s enough of a size down. I think it comes down to how you would be riding this board. I really like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs (when I last rode this board), size 10 boots) but the way I like to ride this board is “do-it-all” – riding trees, butters, park as well as carving, bombing and just cruising. But I think I would be leaning on an all-mountain-freestyle use of the board, and valuing maneuverability a little more than stability at speed.
I think if you predominantly wanted to carve and bomb, with less emphasis on freestyle stuff/trees, then I would be looking at the 159. If you value maneuverability and freestyle a little more, then I think the 156 would be the better bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate – that makes sense. I’m an intermediate rider looking to foray into butters, jumps and park this season. Seems like the 156 is the way to go for me.
Thanks for the quick reply and valuable advice! Hope you have a great season 🙂
You’re very welcome Ken. Hope you have an awesome season too!
Your site is awesome. I think I have spent about 10 hours reading reviews over the last year. Many thanks!
I am 51, 195lbs, 5’10”, boot size US 8.5. I mostly just ride groomers these days. But occasionally might run through the park or have a pow day. I have Burton step ons because my kids make fun of me when I stop to strap in (harsh) which happens a lot because the hills are short around here. I’m probably a level 6 intermediate according to your scale.
Lots of icy conditions in my neighbourhood.
Currently I’m riding a very old Ride 156 from when I was like 20lbs lighter.
This seems like a decent board for me. Do you think there is any better choice? And would you recommend the 156 length of this board. I’m thinking about the 159 cause … well … weight fluctuates.
Hi Jacques
Thanks for your message.
My biggest concern with going with the Standard, particularly in the 159, is the width. Everything else about it I think works well for what you’re describing. I think purely on height/weight/ability/how you ride, something around 159 makes sense. But with the Standard 159 being rather wide for 8.5s, I would be inclined to size down to the 156. If you wanted to step up to a 159, then I would go for a narrower board. I think this would work in the 156, but I wouldn’t be as confident to say the same for the 159.
There are certainly other options that would work for you. Let me know and I would be happy to provide some other options, if you think you’d prefer to go longer/narrower.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I appreciate the great comparisons of boards on your site! I’m looking at the Yes Standard right now as my do-it-all board. As a 5’9, 185 lb., size 10 shoe, mid-to-upper intermediate rider, I’m worried that the 156 is going to be too wide for me, but the 153 will be too small for me.
As a fellow size 10 shoe who rode the 156, did you experience any issues with the width of the board?
The other board I’m looking at is the Capita Mercury, which I feel might be not be forgiving enough/comfortable enough for my skill level. Do you have any advice between the two for someone in my position?
Thanks,
Josh
Hi Josh
Thanks for your message.
I really liked the 156 and had no issues with the width. And I usually really don’t like wider boards. I don’t typically like anything over around 265mm at the insets. The 156 is 270mm at inserts. There’s a couple of reason’s why the width wasn’t an issue in this case. Firstly, because 156 is a length that’s sizing down for me. Typically for an all-mountain board I would ride 157- 160. The other reason is that the waist isn’t overly wide – width at inserts is probably the most important factor, but a narrower waist does seem to help with maneuverability too, irrespective of the width at inserts.
For reference I am 6’0″ with size 10 boots and was 185lbs when I last rode the YES Standard.
I think you would be fine on the 156 and that’s the size I would recommend for you. I think the 153 would be going too small.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I could get my hands on the Yes Standard board for a decent price and I’m thinking of buying it but I’d like to get your opinion if this is suitable board for me. I’d say I’m on level 5ish on your skill level chart (solid on blue, somewhat struggling but haven’t died on black runs, occasional pow runs). I’m looking for an all-mountain board that’s not too catchy or too stiff but would still have a good edge control on icy slopes. I also would like to start riding more powder so the board should have a decent float.
I’m 183cm (6’0), 80kg (175lbs) and ride EU45 (US12) Burton Ruler boots. Which size would fit me best? I was looking at the 156 or 159. Also do you think the Standard could be too much of a board for a low-intermediate level rider?
Cheers Mikko
Hi Mikko
Thanks for your message.
Definitely fits this description well, IMO.
In terms of float. It’s pretty good when centered – I’d say 3/5. And then when in the slam back inserts it would ride a good bit easier in pow. So, I think it would depend on how willing you were to move your bindings back for powder days. Some people don’t like the idea of having to setup their bindings different for a pow day, but if you were good with that, then I think you will find it good for powder days.
Size-wise, it’s a tough call between the 2 in terms of length, but I would be leaning towards the 159. I like the 156 (I have similar specs to you), but for me, with 10s, the 156 is wider than I would normally ride – it’s also shorter than I would normally ride for an all-mountain board, but I like to size down a bit if it’s a little wide. If I had size 12s I would go 159. Also, the 156 might be pushing it in terms of being too narrow for 12s.
That’s a tough one. It’s certainly not an overly technical or stiff ride. It’s what I would say is “solid” intermediate and up. Certainly don’t need to be high-end intermediate to ride it, IMO. For low-intermediate, it’s hard to say.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate for your detailed answer!
I also had my eye on the Yes Hybrid, so could you advise how does the Hybrid compare to the Standard? Do you think the Hybrid could be a good option for me and if so what size would you recommend based on what I described earlier?
Thanks again
Hi Mikko
The Hybrid is a little more technical. They’re both a very similar flex, IMO, as far as I can tell the same. The Hybrid has less rocker tip and tail though, so it’s more camber dominant, which can make it catchier. I didn’t find it catchy at all, but that’s something to keep in mind. Also, note that it’s quite directional, so if you were wanting to ride switch (or take off/land switch for 180s and the likes) it’s less suitable than something like the Standard. It is better in powder though.
Also, the Hybrid is quite wide, so you wouldn’t have any issues width-wise. I think the 157 would work well for your specs. So, size-wise, I think it’s a good fit (in the 157), the only question mark really is around the reduced rocker (mostly because you were concerned about the Standard for low-intermediate and the Hybrid is that little bit more advanced) and whether you were wanting to ride switch/do tricks etc
Hi Nate!
Can you help me? I want to get a Yes standard board. Im 5.10 ft , weigh 143 lbs with a size 9 shoe. My binding angles are 15 and -15 degrees. Im an advanced aggresive rider. Should i buy the yes 149 or the 151 board?
Love your work, thank you.
Hi Jurij
Thanks for your message.
Those are the sizes I would be debating for for you, too. But I would be leaning towards 151 for you, given that you’re an advanced aggressive rider. If you were more intermediate or less aggressive, then I’d give the 149 more consideration but in your case I’d go 151.
Hope this helps with your decision
How does the yes standard compare to the capita mercury and ride superpig? My boot size is actually 9.5. Not 9 as i said before.
Hi Jurij
I haven’t ridden the Superpig, but on paper it looks more like a freeride board – and also a short wide. So quite a different ride compared the Standard and Mercury (which I categorize as all-mountain). The Superpig has a good bit of taper, looks to be stiffer and is 265mm at the waist on the 151 model. If you were to look at something like that, I would say go down to at least 148 (142 would be getting too small, but if there was like a 146 or something might be suitable).
The Standard versus Mercury. The Mercury is subtly stiffer than the Standard and is a little “more board” if that makes sense. It’s a little better for hard carves (IMO) but not quite as good for jumps/spins/riding switch and not as buttery. For speed and powder they’re similar – but if I had to choose one for out and out speed, it would be the Mercury. The Mercury is a slightly more aggressive rider.
The smallest size of the Mercury (153), would be a bigger overall feel vs the 151 Standard. Not only is a little longer but subtly wider too, and wider at the waist. Around 261-262mm at inserts (versus around 259, 260 on the 151 Standard) and 253mm at waist versus 248mm at waist on the Standard.
With 9.5s, it’s more doable than with 9s. And the 151 for the Standard is even more attractive versus the 149 Standard.
If you want something a little more aggressive than the Standard and don’t mind going a bit bigger to get it, and are willing to sacrifice a little in maneuverability, particularly at slower speeds, then the Mercury 153 in option.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate
Have been back and forward reading your reviews and the comments over the last few weeks and still struggling to make my decision so just though I would jump in and ask your opinion…
I am 186cm, 93kg and Ride Lasso size 11US boot (foot 28cm)
Upgrading my gear for first time in about 10 yrs I am tossing up between the YES PYL 160W and the YES Standard 159 or 162
Based in NZ, used to ride a lot but have 2 young kids now so only getting up a handful of days a year. In a good year one of those days is back country heli-boarding or a trip to canada/japan. Rest of the time is NZ resort, off piste and side country if there is soft snow, no park. Try to ride switch and hit off stuff when there is no fresh.
Also struggling with the binding decision because its not something I have paid much attention to in the past, for some reason leaning towards the union atlas at the mo, but also considering union strata, force & rome crux (force and crux quite a bit cheaper). Burton cartels are available too
Current board is a 158 burton supermodel (which is too small for me now) and bindings Union Contact pro
appreciate your thoughts.
cheers
Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Both could certainly work for what you’re describing. Some things below to consider that will hopefully help with your decision:
The PYL is better in powder and big mountain kind of stuff, so going to be better for your heli-boarding trips and Japan if you’re getting good powder. And overall better for that side-country stuff. Standard is better for riding switch/side hits. My instinct is that it sounds like you’re leaning more towards having the better sidecountry/backcountry performance over the side hits stuff? If that’s the case, then I would be leaning PYL.
Standard can still do that stuff pretty well, but not to the same extent as the PYL. The PYL too, whilst not as good as the Standard for side hits/switch/freestyle in general, isn’t something that you can’t do that stuff with. For a freeride board, it’s pretty good there.
Another thing to consider is flex. The PYL is stiffer – by my feel around 7.5/10 – than the Standard (6/10 flex feel). I haven’t ridden the Supermodel, but from what I can find out it sounds like it would be closer in flex to the Standard than the PYL. I don’t think you’d loose much in terms of powder with the Standard vs the Supermodel. Though the Supermodel certainly more suited to powder than Standard in some ways (being more directional, tapered etc), the Supermodel is traditional camber and the Standard has some rocker in there. Centered, I don’t think the Standard would be as good in powder as the Supermodel, but if you put in the slam back inserts, I’d say it would be relatively similar. Having not ridden the Supermodel, I couldn’t say for sure, but that would be my guess.
Apart from being stiffer, the PYL is otherwise more similar to the Supermodel (though still not that similar) in terms of taper, setback, shape.
In terms of bindings, I would def go stiffer for either board you go with, than the Contact Pros. Which would be best will depend on the board you end up going with. If you go with the Standard, then something like the Strata, Force or Cartel’s would be a good bet. If PYL, then I would go Atlas or Falcor, if going Union. The new Cartel X or last season’s Genesis X, if going Burton. Some other options in the following list that would go well with the PYL, IMO:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Don’t know what you’d have available in NZ from there, but from what you’ve mentioned I would say Atlas for PYL and either Strata, Force or Cartel for Standard. Could do Atlas for Standard as well, but I’d be leaning towards the others.
Size-wise for the Standard, I would be leaning towards the 159. Not a lot longer than your supermodel, but it’s a good bit wider. And going 162, you’re going to get something quite wide for your boots, and longer. I think the 159 would work well for you. For the PYL I agree with the 160W size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome thanks Nate, appreciate the advice
You’re very welcome Paul. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Your assessments are so thorough and spot on. Thanks for the hard work.
Looking for some quick advice, I’m caught between sizes. My specs:
46 years old
5’8” 160lbs
Solid intermediate rider
Size 9 Burton Swath Step on system
Ride about 20 times a year.
Currently own a 2016 155cm Typo
I do find the stance width a little wide, but love the edge to edge transition and forgiveness of the Typo. I do find the base a little slow.
Thinking 151 vs 153 Standard as an upgrade.
Thoughts?
Thanks and looking forward to your input.
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I think the 153 would be your best bet. Because of the width of it, I would certainly size down a little, but I thinking sizing down to the 153 is enough. I think that would be a really good size for you for the Standard.
The base on the Standard isn’t super fast, but it is faster than the Typo, so long as you keep it waxed. The Typo has a sintered “spec” base which is basically in between an extruded and sintered base – and the Standard has a sintered “true” base, which is a sintered base, so a bit more speed there vs the Typo, assuming you keep it properly waxed.
The Standard isn’t as quick/easy edge to edge as the Typo, but the Typo is super fast/easy in that sense. The Standard is still pretty good – so long as you size down a little, which you would be with the 153, though. The Typo is just particularly quick/easy in that area. The Standard also not quite as forgiving, but it’s still certainly not ultra-aggressive/rigid or anything either. Not quite as easy to butter as the Typo, but still pretty easy to butter.
You do an upgrade in a number of areas though. Better for carving, better at speed and just a springier/snappier feel – a bit more personality/x-factor vs the Typo. Better for jumps and powder too, IMO. So definitely an upgrade overall, with different strengths/weaknesses.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Looks like the Standard has many boxes ticked for me.
I happened to notice Yes is bringing out a 153 in the Hybrid. I’ve heard it’s excellent for cruising the mountain and carving.
Possibly an even better option than the Standard?
Thanks again.
Hi Mike
I really liked the Hybrid and was glad to see them bring out the 153 size. I felt it needed a smaller size. There were a lot of people I had interested in it, that would have been suitable for it, if not for the 157 being too big for them.
I rate the Hybrid as just that little bit better in terms of carving. But pretty close. Definitely better in powder and definitely not as good for riding switch. Note thought that even though the Standard is a little wider than the average board, that the Hybrid is considerably wider. At the inserts the following widths at inserts are (estimated):
– Standard 153: 263-264mm at back and front inserts (253mm waist width)
– Hybrid 153: 271-272mm at back insert and 277-278mm at front insert
That extra width is great for float in powder, but can make things slower edge to edge. Going from the Typo 155, with width at inserts of 259mm, you’re going quite a bit wider there. I didn’t find the Hybrid slow edge-to-edge (and I rode the 157, which is even wider (though I did ride it with 10s)).
So yeah, if you’re not really riding switch and see a bit of powder, then I would be leaning towards Hybrid, if you think that width wouldn’t be too much of an adjustment. Otherwise, I would go with the Standard.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Your website is very useful 🙂
I’m also thinking of buying the Standard 149. I’m 5’4”, 123 lbs with US 7 size boots (the Burton boots length are 28cm). I ride 50-60% groomers (carving + a bit ground tricks), 30-40% pows and trees and only 0-10% park
Is the board too big for me? If it’s too big, will it be worth trading off slower edge-to-edge for lesser overhangs and more stability?
I saw you did recommended Standard 149 for a guy just about my size (on March 23, 2018), but he was on US 7.5 boots, and you recommended Yes Hel Yes 146 for another woman (on November 9, 2019). Not sure which would be the best option for me.
Thanks!
Hi Kevin
Generally speaking I would say something around 147,148 for your specs. So not far off with the 149. And because they’re on the wider side for 7s, even on the 149, it’s on the bigger side for your specs, IMO. But, if you’re used to riding boards longer than 149, then it’s definitely an option.
Whether it’s worth the trade off to go for the wider width of this board, which is the biggest thing really, IMO, for you as 149 would work for length, depends really on what you value more. If you’re looking to really carve deep and bomb, then having that lesser overhang and stability might be worth it. But it would be that much more effort to get the board moving edge to edge – so not as good for riding trees or other tight spaces. You get the bonus of a wider landing platform for landing jumps too, but you trade off some agility for setups too. And one of the biggest bonuses of having that extra width is for the extra surface area for float in powder.
If you feel you wanted the board more nimble, you could look at the Hel Yes too – even the 149, though I think the 146 would also be a good size for you.
So yeah, 149 Standard certainly doable, depending on how you aggressive you’re looking to carve and how much you’re willing to give up a little agility. 149 isn’t like super long for you or anything, but just because it will be on the wide side for 7s, it’s that combination of length and width that makes on the bigger side for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate for the answer. It does help a lot especially on the tradeoffs part.
I’m still more inclined towards the Standard 149 (vs Hel Yes) because I feel that it’s easier to minimize the agility tradeoff (e.g. by adjusting bindings – forward lean or heel strap position, using stiffer ones, or just riding slower in tight trees) rather than to minimize tradeoffs from foot drags, stability or floats if I were to use Hel Yes. Though, I think these differences would be minor as these boards are very similar. Overall, I think the Standard has more “limit” if I am to push and progress on my skills too.
Not sure if the rationale above make sense to you (would love to get your opinion on this)
Also, given that I want to minimize this agility tradeoff, which bindings would you recommend? I’m thinking the Cartels might work because of its stiffness and adjustability. Any other options? (e.g. the new Cartel X, Union Atlas, …).
Btw, I do not plan to change my boots (Burton Imperial) this year. It fits perfectly and still in a very good shape.
Thank you in advance for your help on this!
Hi Kevin
Imperials are a good match to the Standard, IMO, so definitely no need to switch boots.
Don’t think you’d have any drag issues on the 146 or 149 Hel Yes, unless you’re really like Euro carving or something, but even then, with 28cm long boots (and a good bit of toe bevel on the Imperials too), you’d have to get some serious angle in really soft snow, IMO, for that to be a concern.
You’re looking at around 3.4cm of total overhang (predicted) on the 146 Hel Yes and 3.2cm of total overhang on the 149 Hel Yes. That’s around 1.7cm and 1.6cm respectively per edge, assuming perfect centering. In my experience that’s well within a safe amount. Personally I’m comfortable with up to 2.5cm on the toe edge and up to 3cm on the heel edge. You might want more leeway than that, but the Hel Yes would give you that. The Standard 149 in comparison you’re looking at around 2.4cm of total overhang (1.2cm per edge assuming perfect centering). It is wider at the inserts vs the waist compared to the Hel Yes, due to the Mid-Bite, so it’s wider at the inserts than it looks, just looking at the waist width. And this all assuming a 0 binding angle. With binding angles this reduces that overhang. So yeah, in short I don’t think you’d have any issues on the Hel Yes in that sense.
But yeah, there are things you can do to increase that agility. But it’s actually when you’re riding slower that it has the biggest impact, IMO. It’s easier to get momentum to changing edges when you’re riding faster than when you’re riding slow. So when there is something that affects how easy it is to change edges (like being wide or being really stiff) it affects things more at slow speeds, when you’ve got to provide more of that momentum to get the board to change edges yourself, rather than getting more assistance from gravity. When the board is wide for your feet (causing your feet to be quite far inside the edges of the board), then it takes more energy to transfer leverage to the edges.
Doing things like having your bindings baseplate as close to the edges, without going over, certainly helps with leverage, but it’s your feet (as opposed to boots and bindings) that have the most affect on leverage on the boards edges. The boots are certainly what determine if you have too much overhang, but it’s the feet that ultimately determine if there’s too much “underhang”.
So I wouldn’t go too stiff with bindings either. Same as with stiff boards being less maneuverable at slower speeds, so are stiff bindings. That said, you will get a bit more out of the Standard going stiffer in the bindings, I just wouldn’t go too stiff. So something like the Cartel are a good match, IMO. Stiff enough without being too stiff. The Cartel X isn’t something I got on this past season, unfortunately (I tried, and will try again start of next season). But if they’re a similar flex to the outgoing Genesis X, then they would also be a good option. Anything 6/10 to 7/10 in flex is what I would look at for the Standard. The Cartel to me feel around 6/10 in terms of flex and the Genesis X were around 7/10. Not sure if the Cartel X will be similar or not, though.
Going with something Union could make sense as their baseplates tend to be longer, so you get that extra leverage on the edges of the board, which would certainly be a plus on the 149 Standard for you. The Strata (6/10), Atlas (6.5/10) and Falcor (7/10) would be my picks to match the Standard, if you went Union. The Atlas aren’t as long in the baseplate as the Strata or Falcor, but they do have the ability to adjust the gas pedal, which the Strata and Falcor don’t have. But yeah, the Atlas or Cartel both really good in terms of adjustability.
Hope this gives you more to go off and let me know if you need any more details on any of those boards or bindings
Hi Nate,
Thanks a lot for the very detailed answer. The measurements on overhangs are very helpful. Really love these technical talks!
I spent some time researching a bit more today, and to be honest I might change my choice to the Hel Yes. Here’s what I found:
First, I measured the heights from the ground to my boots (+ bindings) to be 5.5cm (Imperials do have bevel). I also uses 15/-15 binding angles so effectively the boots’ length is around 27cm
On the Hel Yes 149, with 15/-15 bindings I’ll have 1.1cm overhangs per side (neglecting underbites) based on your numbers. I ride in Japan so if the soft snow is 0.5cm (should it be more?), it’s effectively 1.6cm overhangs. With 5.5cm heights, the triangle calculator gives me 74 degrees – that’s already a lot of angles. You’re absolutely right. I can also move the bindings back a bit as well if I want to try Euro carve.
On the Standard 149, with the same assumptions I’ll get 78 degrees from the triangle calculator which is not very different.
I also looked at bit at another website that said the Standard is slow edge-to-edge, and that’s because he was on the 156 (25.8 waist width – big size for him) with US 9 boots (26cm foot length). I’m in an even worse situation because my feet are actually shorter than the waist width of the 149 🙁
The surface area of Hel Yes 149 vs Standard 149 is also only 1 DM2 different (2.7% diff) which is still very close.
So yeah…. after looking at the numbers. I might just go with the Hel Yes combining with the Cartels (I guess).
How should I consider in picking the 146 vs 149 (the specs are super close except the length)? Which length do you recommend and why?
Thank you!
Hi Kevin
A good call, I think – and well thought out.
Between the 146 and 149, it’s a tough call. In terms of powder, you’re going to get more float out of the 149 and it’s going to feel more stable when riding at speed and a little better for big carves. The 146 would give you a bit more agility and be a bit easier to throw around. Better for butters, spins, tricks in general and better in trees. The 149 is at the upper end of your range, IMO, but the 146 is at the lower end of your range, so both are definitely options.
I think it comes down to whether you want to gain a little more agility for trees & ground tricks whilst sacrificing a little in terms of powder, speed and carving, if you go with the 146 and visa versa with the 149. Given you’re in Japan and you’ve mentioned a majority of riding groomers and pow, that I’d be leaning towards the 149 – but if depends on how much you’re pow is in the trees, and how much you’re doing ground tricks vs carving when on groomer. And which you want to emphasize the most.
The other thing to consider is what size you’re more used to. If you usually ride closer to 149 or to 146, then that’s could be another pointer towards the right size.
Nate,
Saw your review and many others, and after digging around the internet for all-mountain boards, decided to pull the trigger on this bad boy today! 5’11”, 185-195lbs, 10.5US and I opted for the 156. Any ideas on a decent set of bindings for this thing? I ride pretty much everywhere – bowls, speedy groomers, side hits, deep deep, and park (though I haven’t gotten around to messing with rails (yet)) – and besides craigslist have no real experience purchasing equipment. Would love to hear your thoughts!
Hi Trevor
Thanks for your message.
Main thing I would say is to match up the flex pretty close. So, for the Standard, I would go either 6/10 or 7/10 in terms of flex. Check out the following for some great options in that flex range:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First your website is GOLD!!!!!
I m about to buy the Standard which discovered here, after long reading of your all your articles, i came to the conclusion i should go for the 153, but im still hesitant with the 156.
my specs are 176 cm for 78kg and a size 9 burton photon.
could you help to confirm my choice please?
thank you
forget to mention that i want to change my boots for Adidas ADV who should be 8.5 as they fit larger than burton, but i cant confirm as i didn’t try them yet.it is just assumptions of what i have read everywher.
Hi Stephen
For the Standard, I would say go 153 with your specs. For a lot of other boards, it would be more like 156, but in this case I would go 153, given your boot size vs the width of the Standard.
Same would go if you change for Adidas ADV in 8.5s, and yeah I find that I have to go half a size down for Adidas boots (I usually wear a 10, but I’m 9.5 for Adidas boots), so if you’re 9 in Burton, then 8.5 in Adidas is most likely the best size for you.
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate
Thank you for your help and also Thank you to share your knowledge about snowboarding with us.
So the buy is done 😀
153 standard with Now pilot bindings .
I had a little run and i m a really happy man.
Thanks again for your help and keep up doing your fantastic work.
You’re very welcome Stephen. Happy riding!
Sorry Nate just for correction. My weight is -75 lbs 75 kg without gears. And I am 178cm tall with boots size 8.5-9.
Hi Tim
Thanks for your messages.
Firstly, in terms of mid-bite vs magnetraction, that it’s a very close call – and it depends on the level of magnetraction. I would say very aggressive magnetraction has better hold in icy conditions vs mid-bite. Not by a huge amount but is a little better. But can sometimes feel “grabby” in softer snow. I never get that feeling from mid-bite. Mid-bite has better grip than more mellow magnetraction. In terms of the mid-bite vs the magnetraction on the Rider’s Choice, I would say maybe the Rider’s Choice by a very small margin, but all 3 boards are very good in that area, so I wouldn’t decide solely on that as I think you’ll find them all good. Also to note, that the Rider’s Choice has never felt grabby to me.
The Standard isn’t technically true twin, it’s directional volume twin, but it’s essentially a twin – except when you’re in powder, then it gives you a bit more in powder. Still really good for riding switch.
Given that you like to ride powder, the Standard is the best option for that in my opinion, particularly if you make use of the slam back inserts on powder days. Followed by the Rider’s Choice, followed by the Greats.
For carving, the Greats is the best, IMO, followed by the Standard, followed by the Rider’s Choice.
They’re all about equal in terms of buttering, IMO.
For jumps the Greats and Rider’s Choice the best, IMO, but the Standard still very very good in that area.
There isn’t a bad choice between them for what you’re describing, but hopefully that gives you more to go off for your decision.
In terms of size, I would say the following for each:
– Standard: 153 (this and the Greats are sizing down a little from a size I’d usually recommend but for your boot size and your overall specs, and given these are wider boards, this is the best size for you, IMO)
– Greats: 154
– Rider’s Choice: 154.5 or 157.5 – I think probably 154.5 given the style you’re describing. It sounds like when you’re on the groomers you like to ride freestyle quite a bit – buttering sidehits etc – and you ride trees a bit by the sounds of it. But if I have that wrong and you do like to ride fast and straight line it more than I’m thinking you do, then the 157.5 is a possibility, but from what I’m getting from you and from your specs, I would say 154.5.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thanks for your answer.
For Yes board, I found they also have underbite like Yes basic. How is underbite compared to midbite in edge hold?
Time to pick LoL, really need your help.
What if I only pick one board which board should I pick (among those three or you have other better recommendation)?
What if I can pick two boards, the reason is that one board is freestyle-all mountain and another is all mountain-freeride, which two would you recommend? (Not limit to those three but please take edge hold into consideration).
Thanks
Hi Tim
Underbite just as good as Mid-bite for icy conditions, IMO. Maybe even slightly better. But overall, I prefer the likes of the Standard, Greats, Ghost or Jackpot for all-mountain-freestyle riding, over something like the Basic or Typo.
If you can only pick one board, then I think I would go Standard, just because it gives you that little bit more versatility in terms of powder.
If you were to go for one all-mountain freestyle and a more freeride oriented option, I would go YES Greats or Rider’s Choice for the all-mountain-freestyle option.
For the more freeride option, that opens up a whole new thing. Would you want it to still be able to ride switch OK, or would you be happy with it being considerably more directional? Would you want to go stiffer or keep things around that mid-flex range? Would you be using it predominantly for riding trees and powder? If you can give me a bit more information as to how you would use the 2nd board in your quiver, that would help to narrow down some options.
Hi Nate
For the second board for all mountain free ride I still prefer ride switch. I am okay with stiffer flex or keep the medium flex either way is okay. And yes this board will be the main board for riding powder and trees. What do you recommend? Yes standard or PYL? The standard might be a bit overlapping with riders choice?
Hi Tim
Yeah, I think going Standard and Rider’s Choice would be going with 2 relatively similar types of boards. Certainly not the same boards by any means. They both have a very different feel to each other and different strengths and weaknesses, so they’re certainly going to offer different things as part of a quiver. But personally I would go for a bigger difference, and go with something a little more directional than the Standard. Something like the PYL would work well, I think. You can certainly still ride it switch. Not as good for switch as the Standard, but certainly doable.
Other options could include the Lib Tech E Jack Knife or Niche Story, but I think the PYL would go well with the Rider’s Choice in a two board quiver.
Hi Nate,
I will go Yes Standard. Just the size issue, I look at the Yes table, 153cm has 25.3 WAIST WIDTH (CM). I check back your post for “Men’s Waist Width Chart” at 15°, for boots size 8.5, it is minimum 237 to maxium 247. Should I go Standard 151cm? It has less underhaul for me. I read many reviews says this board is mid-wide board, it will affect to the turn initiation if the board is too big.
thanks!
Hi Tim
Yeah, in my experience a wider board is slower to initiate turns on, but sizing down in terms of length counteracts that, so I often, depending on boot size, recommend going down in size on this board, if it’s going to be on the wide size for your boots. For you, I think the 153 is on the wide size for your boots, but it’s also on the short size for your specs, so I think that would already be sizing down.
151 would be doable, but it’s sizing down a reasonable amount. Between the 2, I would say that:
– The 153 will be subtly better at speed and in powder and for long arcing carves
– The 151 will be more maneuverable at slower speeds and better for more freestyle stuff like butters, jibs and jumps to some extent (though the bigger size would give you a bigger landing platform, which can be good to have, especially for larger jumps)
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
My boots size 8.5 will be best for 151 cm, but my weight (actually 165lbs naked) will be more suitable for 153cm. It is really a hard decision, but I am more and more towarding 151cm due to the quicker edge-to-edge response(due to the mid-wide board). Do you think the waist width and another board specs will work for me? I do not believe I will have large jump in near feature like you mentioned (starting from small one :-p).
It is a midbite, so it is actually wider over the bindings than the waist width (248mm), I should be safe from boot overhaul, is that right?
Last, how do you think the Yes website (Support, Sizing guildlines), it seems like Standard in under “Traditional group”, and Yes suggest people ride wider board to have fun experience. Is that out of date, i.e., the page was published before Greats, Standard and Jackpot brought Midbite and became mid-wide?
Hi Tim
No the YES website is not out of date. They have been proponents of going wider for some time now. I agree to some extent. It’s true that if you go too narrow, then you can risk toe drag, if you’re really railing a carve. However, I also know from experience that I personally find boards that are too wide for my boots to be physically harder to initiate a turn on – and not as fun for that reason. So there’s a balance that needs to be gained between going wide enough but not too wide.
For your boot size, I think the 151 is wide enough not to run into any boot drag issues, so I don’t think you have any issues with it being too narrow. You could go considerably narrower without issue than that. So, if you wanted to go for the 151, it’s definitely an option.
If you wanted to go longer, but narrower, then you could look at something like the YES Typo, if you wanted to stay YES. For that, the 155 would be the best size for you, IMO.
Hi Nate,
I have made a purchase on 151 cm Standard. It will be as my major resort board for carving, side hit and ground tricks. Also, in case a good heavy snow day (which is rare in Ontario), it is still not too bad for floaty and trees.
Also, I will buy another board the LibTech Terrain Wrecker 157 (so like the graphics in both the Standard and TW 2020) as my 2nd board for big mountain while still keep the riding switch potential.
Hopefully, 151 will work for me, and will have to report to you in next season of what it feels like because all resort are close now…
Thank you for all the helps and efforts you put on this website and your comments for me!
Tim
Hi Tim
Thanks for the update. I look forward to hearing how you get on with the Standard and Terrain Wrecker next season, once we all get a chance to get back out on snow! I’m already itching for it. I think even more so, given that we were cut short this season.
Hi Nate
Have to decide one board from your list.
1) Yes standard 2) Yes greats. 3) GNU riders choice 4) your recommend?
First, the most important conditions to decide the board for me is: edge hold on ice. I live East coast we have lot of icy days. I run Burton boards now but I feel I can’t hold my edge on the ice which is matched to many reviews on burton boards. So ice performance number one considering. How is Yes midbite compare to GNU Magne technology? Which one perform best in hard ice?
Second, must be true twin. Those three boards are all true twin. If you have any other board to recommend i would still prefer the board can play switch.
Third, the board can match my style. I’m not a park guy but willing to learn. I am 70% groom riding switch, carving, buttering and jumping. 20% will take trips for powder and trees, and 10% is the park.
My info: I’m 178cm and 175lb without gears. My boots size is 8.5 burton slx. Which board and the board length you’d recommend?
Hey Nate,
Been looking to get some new gear and your website has been immensely helpful. After reading your review of the Yes Standard I think I’ve decided that this will be my next board as I advance on the slopes. I’m an intermediate rider who is 5’6, 135-140 lbs, and a size 8. Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time deciding on whether a 149 cm or a 151 cm board would be a good length for me. I only plan on owning 1 board so I’m really trying to get something that can do everything while avoiding any buyer’s remorse. I’ve ridden on boards all the way between 146-154, and reading through the comments it seems like you suggest going a little shorter on the Yes Standard. What is your recommendation for my specs?
Thanks!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
For you I would go 149. It’s definitely a board I would err on the shorter side of, depending on boot size. With size 8 boots, I would definitely err on the shorter side. Also as an intermediate rider, I would err on the shorter side. So, whilst the 151 would be OK in terms of length, I think the 149 would be a better length/width combo for your specs – a better overall size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate thanks for all wicked info and content on your site. Question about the Standard. I am early intermediate and looking to upgrade my board have narrowed down to the Standard in 153 or the Greats Unic in 154.
Riding is all mountain and looking for a one board do it all. Not really in the park but like having the option. I am 5’9” around 176lb and size 9 boot. Any thoughts or advice on the two?
And just to make things really interesting I have also been considering a Yes PYL but am wondering if it may be a littl above me at this point in time
Hi Tom
Thanks for your messages.
Yeah if your early intermediate I would say the PYL is just that bit too much of a stretch, so I would stick to looking at the Standard or Greats. Between those 2, I would say probably the Standard for you, just because you mention you want your board to be an all-rounder. The Greats is for the most part an all-rounder, but it’s not as good for powder. Assuming you ride powder sometimes, then I think the Standard would be a more well-rounded ride for you. However, if you rarely see powder or if it’s never really that deep, then I would say go for the Greats.
Hope this helps with your decision
Certainly does mate yup, it’s the way I was leaning also. Any thoughts on the size for the standard. I was looking at the 153?
Thanks again
Hi Tom
Yeah I think the 153 is probably the best. Usually I would say go more like 156, 157 for your specs. But with 9s on the Standard, I think the 153 is the way to go. It would be between that and the 156. The 156 would give you more stability at speed and better float in powder and better for big carves vs the 153, but the 153 will be a more maneuverable ride and better for freestyle stuff and tress, IMO. So it would partly depend on what you prioritize the most there.
Nate, thanks again for all the help much appreciated. I will be picking up my Standard in 153 this week.
All the best
You’re very welcome Tom. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow
Hey Nate, just checking back in here. I got the Standard in 153 and have had a couple days with it on the snow now. Wow is all I can say, very very pleased and impressed with this, it’s night and day difference to my old Agenda. Has filled me with confidence so far and I love it. Once again sir Thankyou for your advice and Thankyou for the awesome job you do with the site.
All the best
Hi Tom
Thanks for the update and awesome that you’re loving the Standard! (hard not to IMO).
Hello,
Just got this board and rode it for the first time. Absolutely loved it. Super poppy, super stable, and really fast. I have a question about the setback. I have mini disk binding so I set it up with a setback of about 3/4 of an inch…about a 22.5″ stance…just so I have a little more nose when I’m off in the Backcountry. Do you think this is a problem for everyday riding since this board is essentially a twin? I know you state in your review it rode fine centered but I was just curious if this is an issue? I’ll ride switch if I’m landing switch or forced to depending on the circumstances but generally I’m riding regular.
Thanks,
David
Hi David
Thanks for the update on the Standard and awesome that you’re loving the ride!
No problems having a bit of a setback on the Standard, IMO. It’s a directional volume twin, but there’s no reason you can’t ride it with a bit of a setback. With the mini-disc, you can’t take advantage of the “slam back” inserts, but setting back like you, I don’t see any issues there. Sure, it’s not ideal for riding switch, but if you’re only ever in switch briefly, it should be all good.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Just discovered the website: great stuff here. Two question here. I’m coming back to snowboarding after a few years hiatus, Consider myself a beginning intermediate. I really like the characteristics of this board, but is it too much of a step up? Just boarded on loans until now. Secondly: What size would you advise for me? Size 9 US boots, 180 cm and around 80 kg (just a little smaller than you overall). 153 or 156? Speciallly considering the width of this board?
Hi Li
Thanks for your message.
Hard to say if it’s going to be too much for your level or not but it’s borderline. And I think the sizing isn’t idea either way. 153 a bit too short, IMO and the 156, although would be sizing down a bit, might still be a bit on the wide side. The combination of size not being idea and the fact it might be a little on the advanced side would make me hesitant to go for this one. I would rather look at the Typo, if you wanted to stick with YES.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the swift reply man! Yeah was also considering the typo. What size would I need for that board? And are there other do it all boards that I might consider? Im a True all mountain dude, I like pow, just clowning around and carving down the bigger slopes.. something playful but all round.. cheers and thanks in advance
Ps I’m actually a us 10, just checked my boots. Does that make a difference?
Hi Li
Actually yeah that does make a difference. I think the 156 Standard would be a good size for you. The only consideration then is if it’s just a bit beyond your level, which is hard to say for sure. But if you feel like you’ll get up to speed quickly, that’s an option for sure.
If you were to go Typo, I would go for the 158.
Some other good options would include the:
– Slash Brainstorm 157
– Rossignol One LF 156 or 159
– Burton Custom Flying V 158
– Nitro Team Gullwing 157
– Never Summer Snowtrooper 156 or 159
Those are the ones off the top of my head that I think would work really well for you, in addition to the Typo. In terms of being good for your level, but also good all-rounders, if you didn’t go with the Standard or Typo.
Thanks for all the info Nate, I really appreciate it! I actually found a really cheap standard in my size (test board), and couldn’t resist. Will let you know how it works out. Thanks again!
Hi Li
Thanks for letting me know. Awesome that you were able to get it for a good price. Look forward to hearing how you get on.
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’1, 195lbs, size us 10.5 Salomon Dialogue Focus BOA’s (chunky boot)
This board looks exactly like what I’m looking for and I’m really leaning towards this board in the 159 variety. My only concern is that it’s going to be too wide and I’m going to feel like its too slow edge to edge which is important to me as I like to ride the trees.
Should I send it on the 159 or should I look elsewhere?
From one Nate to the other thank you! Your website is awesome and super helpful.
Hey Nate – great name!
Thanks for the message.
Length-wise, I think the 159 is spot on for your specs, taking into account that it’s going to be wide for your feet. For a narrower board, I would probably go a little longer than that for your specs. Though riding trees a lot you could size down a little. It’s hard to say for sure, but I think you would fine on it. If you really wanted that maneuverability from a narrower board for the trees, I can definitely see your hesitation then, but I think the sizing to 159 it would still work. I like the 156 in this board, but I ride 10s (and a 27cm foot), and was 6’0″, 185lbs when I rode the Standard last. With that little bit more in terms of boot size, height and weight, I think the 159 would work well. If you know your foot length, that would also be useful. I think if it’s 27.5-28cm, I think you’ll be fine. In terms of getting too wide, it’s more about foot size than boot size. In terms of going too narrow it’s more about boot size.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the great info in these reviews. I’m 6’ 210lbs with a size 12 u.s. boot. I’m in between 159 and 162 on the Standard. I’ve scanned through most of your replies in this review and it sounds like either would be a good choice for me based on my boot size. What I’m interested in is, will there be a noticeable difference in how these two board sizes handles based on my weight? Would there be a noticeable difference in turn initiation from 159 to 162 at my size?
I was able to demo a 156 Yes Ghost and it wasn’t as stable as i had hoped for, but I’m sure that was because it wasn’t the best size in that board for me.
Hi Jake
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, 156 is a bit short for your specs for the Ghost, so not too surprised it didn’t feel that stable.
Size-wise for the Standard, it’s a close call between the 159 and 162, but I would be leaning towards the 162. You could definitely get on the 159 with 12s, so width isn’t an issue there. But I would still be leaning towards the 162 for your specs, assuming a relatively advanced level or riding.
In terms of the likely differences you’ll feel on each size, I would say:
– The 162 will feel more stable at speed, float better in powder and bet better for harder/deeper carves
– The 159 will be easier to maneuver, and be easier to butter/press and for freestyle stuff in general
There will be a difference in turn initiation between the 2, with the 159 being faster edge-to-edge, but with your specs, I think the 162 will be maneuverable for you anyway, and you’ll get the stability/float benefits from it. It does depend on your preferences when you ride though. If you prefer a more playful ride, like to ride a lot of trees and freestyle, then the 159 is still an option, but overall I would be leaning towards 162 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for all the info. Wish I could demo the board but no shops near me carry it for some reason, so I appreciate your help.
You’re very welcome Jake. Hope you’re having a great season
Hi Nate,
I am 6,2 about 185, size 11.5. think the 159w is good for me, I like to do a bit of everything, been venturing out to the back country more and more but still like to hit jumps and do spins. I’ve always ridden boards under 160 so I’m scared to go for the 162. Do you think I’m good on the 159w or should I size up?
thanks,
David
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think the 159 would work well. You could ride 162 as well, for sure, but if you’re used to under 160, then I think the 159 will work really well – especially given you’re still wanting it for jumps/spins.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Great site! Thank you very much for your reviews!
I’m intermediate, 6′, 190-200lbs, US10.5 boot size. Usualy I ride groomed trails, sometime a little powder or freestyle. I’m looking for all mountain board and thinking about Yes Standard. But, 156 or 159? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response (I was already behind after Christmas, then had some family issues to deal with – getting back on track now (hopefully!).
It’s a touch call between those sizes for your specs, but I would be leaning towards the 159 for you. That’s sizing down a little from the “standard length” I would assign to your specs, but the board is on the wider side for 10.5s, so that size down makes sense, IMO. I like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs, US10) – and you’re not too far different to my specs, but with that slightly larger boot size and that little more weight it tips you into the 159, IMO. Also, for me, I typically like to ride a little shorter, as I like to incorporate a fair bit of freestyle and trees. The 156 is doable for you, but it would be a more freestyle focused kind of deck. For powder, speed and carving, I think you’ll appreciate the 159 more – and I think the benefits in those areas would outweigh the maneuverability/freestyle gains of the shorter 156.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate!
Thanks a lot! I have a question, if you allow me.
I read your article “How Important is Snowboard Width Sizing and How Do I Get it Right”. I started measuring my feet and boots and found that my boots (US10.5) 31cm and my feet 27cm. I fear, that yes 159 will be too wide for me, especially in my stance +21/+6 or +18/+3. What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Hi Mike
Yeah that does make a difference. I have 27.3cm feet (or at least my left foot is about that). Since it’s your feet that ultimately apply pressure to the edges, that does make the board wider for you than I thought with the 10.5 boot size. That does make the 156 more appealing. Only thing is that it will compromise on stability at speed for your weight vs something like the 159. But if you’re willing to take that compromise, I think the 156 can work for you. If you’re concerned with that stability at speed factor, then it might be worth looking at a different board.
Hey Nate,
Awesome site. Love the comprehensive reviews you provide.
I’m debating between the Standard and the Typo. Currently I ride an Arbor Foundation 158cm. Stellar board to learn on but I’m starting to feel like I’m outgrowing it. It’s easy to turn, but lacks stability at speed, tends to wash out on steeps, or in icy/hard pack conditions. I can compensate to a degree by using my knees more actively but that can get tiring if riding lots of moguls/chunder.
I’ve been riding for a couple years, usually hit a mix of groomers, trees, moguls. Solid blue runner, and will do a handful of blacks each time I’m out. I do small jumps on runs and occasionally jump a box at the park for fun, but not really a park person. I ride almost entirely in Canadian Rockies, so nice snow mostly, but steeper runs are the norm. We rarely have “ice” days like out east, but windswept hard pack are common on exposed slopes.
I’m looking for a board that has good edge hold and stability at speed, while also still being quick to turn edge to edge. Both the Typo and Standard seem like candidates, my only worry with the Standard is if it’s too much board for me. I don’t want to pick up a new stick and have my butt handed to me.
Specs are 170lbs, 5 ’10, size 10 boots. Ride regular, duck foot stance about 15 plus, 10 neg. Eager to hear your thoughts on which board makes more sense for me.
Hi James
Please refer to my response to your other message.
Hi!
I just sold my 18/19 Jones Mountain Twin 167w since, at least for me, it was waaay to stiff and damp. I still see a lot lof positive reviews for this board and comments that it is playfull and can handle park runs and jibs, but I completely disagree; this board is not playfull.
Now I want something a bit more mellow and fun, but still has the capability to carve and charge the whole mountain, including park runs.
I have a hard time choosing between the Yes Standrad 167 and a Gnu Riders Choice 166w. I am 192cm tall and weigh ~104kg with US size 12 Ion’s. I am leaning hard towards the Yes, but still, previous awesome experiences with the Gnu Riders choice is hard to ignore…
Which would you recommend?
Best regards, Pär
Hi Pär
Thanks for your message.
Between the Standard and Rider’s Choice, I would say that the Rider’s Choice is the more playful option – and most suited to the park. But the Standard is still fine for riding the park, and still has some playfulness to it. It’s surprisingly easy to butter given it’s flex (6/10) and has a snappy rather than damp feel, IMO. It would be the better option for carving and speed, IMO. It’s a tough choice as on the one hand you have the more playful Rider’s Choice, and it’s something you’ve ridden and know you like, but you would, IMO, get more out of carving/speed from the Standard. I would say that the Standard would feel roughly half way between the Rider’s Choice and Mountain Twin in terms of playfulness.
I would be leaning towards the Standard, but it’s a tough one, particularly as you’ve had good experiences on the Rider’s Choice and it’s a known quantity for you. Hope this gives you more info to go off anyway.
Hi Nate,
Great site, it’s been very helpful so far so thank you!
I’d like your opinion about two boards i’m considering: Yes Standard or Endeavor Pioneer (156cm for both unless you suggest otherwise). I’m 5’11” 160 lbs wearing size 11 Burton Photon boots and size large Burton Mission Re:Flex bindings (15, -15).
I ride a bit of everything but spend most of my time riding a combination of groomers and trees. I’d say carving, maneuverability, pop, and switch riding are my biggest priorities. Could you recommend which of those boards I should go with based on my specs and riding style?
Hi Nikko
Thanks for your message.
I would say YES Standard, but both are good options. To me the Pioneer is more freestyle oriented. It’s still something that’s good for riding groomers, trees, carving etc as well, but just not quite to the same level as something like the Standard, IMO. For speed, carving and powder, the Standard, IMO, has it over the Pioneer. The Pioneer is a little more maneuverable I would say, and just a touch better for switch, jumps and butters, but overall, I would say the Standard for what you’re describing.
The 156 for the Standard is a good bet for you, IMO. The width is good for 11s and that’s the length I would say for your specs/what you’re describing. The 156 for the Pioneer too – the only thing there would be the width. I would say you’d get away with it, but it’s going to be on the narrower end of your range. That will help even more so with maneuverability, but if you like to really rail your carves, then there’s a small chance of boot drag there, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision (also see my Pioneer review if you haven’t already if you want to see more detail on that).
Hey Nate,
Debating between the Typo and the Standard. My specs are 175 lbs, 5’10, size 10 boot. Current board is the Arbor Foundation. It’s an amazing board to learn on but I feel that I’ve outgrown it, particularly when it comes to crossing chunder fields, high speeds and carving. Wash outs are common in hard-pack/ice and stability at higher speeds is sometimes terrifying. I can accommodate somewhat by engaging my knees more but it definitely wears me down way faster over the course of a day.
I ride a mix of groomers, moguls, off-piste/powder and trees. Solid on blue runs, and do a handful of blacks most days but still have trouble committing to high-speed turns on really steep blacks in places like Kicking Horse. I may hit the occasional jump on a run, but not a park guy. Ride mostly in Alberta/BC/Montana.
Looking at the Standard because it’s quiver of one, has good edge-hold in hard pack and ice, carves well, good stability at speed, has very good reviews, I can ride it until it’s worn out. Debating the Typo because it is slightly more intermediate than advanced (worried Standard may be too much board for me and Typo is more forgiving). I hate the Typo’s graphics, but whatever. I just don’t want to grab a Standard and not be able to handle it. I’ve ridden hybrid and camber boards before, so camber style isn’t an issue.
Cheers, and thanks.
Hi James
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. A bit behind and trying to catch up after vacation.
Both boards would be an upgrade from the Arbor Foundation for sure. But I think, based on what you’re describing that the Standard is your best bet. It’s not a super technical board to ride, and I think from what you describe that it won’t be too hard to handle. It’s certainly a little more advanced than the Typo, but it’s still intermediate friendly-enough. It will be a bigger step up from the Foundation to that, but I think it’s a step that you should be able to handle, based on what you’re describing. And it’s something that you wouldn’t have to upgrade from. The Typo would likely be an easier adjustment, but given the style of riding you’re describing, might be something that you might want to upgrade again from 2-4 seasons down the line (depending on how often you ride).
Size-wise for the Standard, I would go 156. It’s sizing down a little, but the board is on the wider side, so sizing down is a good idea. I like the 156 in the Standard and I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boot. But I probably ride it a little more on the freestyle side compared to what you’re describing, and I typically prefer a little shorter – so I think even though I’ve got a little size on you, weighing everything up, I would go 156. If you were to go Typo, I would say the 158 would be the best choice.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome Nate. That’s helpful. Thanks so much for the thoughtful response. You rock.
You’re very welcome James. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Great site! Hands down the best snowboard review page I’ve come across.
I’ve been looking for a “do it all” board, and think I’ve settled on the Standard. Your review helped me make up my mind. Now I’m trying to decide on a size. I’m torn between the 156 and 159. I’m 6’2”, about 190-195lb, and wear a 10.5US boot. I’m an advanced intermediate, east coast rider, so the majority of my riding is carving on hard packed groomers (and ice). I seek out powder whenever I can, but we don’t get much of it here, and a foot is a lot. So float is not a huge concern. I like riding trees, practicing butters/flat tricks, and finding side hits, so I was thinking that the 156 would be more nimble/fun for those things, but from what I’ve read, I’m bumping up against the upper size recommendation for the 156. Do you think I’d notice much of a difference in quickness, and flex for butters, between the 156 and 159? Coming off an old Burton Custom 161.
Thanks in advance,
Randy
Hi Randy
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. Bit behind at the moment after vacation.
Firstly, yes the 156 will feel more nimble and be more buttery than the 159. I think the question is if the reduction in stability at speed will outweigh those advantages. Even the 159 will, IMO, be more buttery than the 161 Custom, so you should already gain an advantage there, regardless of size. But in terms of being more nimble, I’m not sure the 159 Standard would be vs the 161 Custom – mainly because of how much wider it is. With 10.5s, the 159 is doable, and is still sizing down for you, for a do-it-all board, IMO, so that counters some of that extra width, in terms of for nimblenesses sake. But whether it will feel as nimble as your Custom 161 feels, is questionable. I would say certainly so for the 156 though.
I like the 156 but you’ve got a little bit of height/weight/1/2 boot size on me, so it’s a tough one.
I think if nimbleness, butterability and tricks/side hits are your biggest priorities and you’re willing to sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed, then the 156 is certainly doable – but it is, IMO, sizing down quite a bit for your specs. If you want to keep more of a balance between speed and everything else, then the 159 is probably the better choice.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate,
Thanks for the reply. It sounds like the 159 is the best bet for me. I appreciate your time and insight.
Quickly, are there any other boards that you’d recommend? Ive also considered the Solomon Assassin and the Yes NSB Globe. Open to other suggestions.
Thanks. Hope you had a good vacation.
Randy
And the Yes The Greats.
Hi Randy
One of the biggest differences between the Greats and the Standard, is that the Standard is better in powder, IMO. The other is the asym side-cut, which I really like but isn’t for everyone. And it does mean you can’t really set it back on a powder day – well I’ve never tried it anyway. I feel like it would seem weird with the asymmetry. But since you mention you don’t get powder a lot, then it could be doable. There are some advantages to it over the Standard – a little better for carving, IMO – and I think that’s down to a little less rocker in the nose and tail and also I like that asym tech for heel side carves. Also a little better for jumps, spins and riding switch. An overall more freestyle focused ride though. Similar width-wise to the Standard (a little wider overall).
The Assassin is a great board too. It’s something that I label all-mountain-freestyle, but I’m always very close to calling it all-mountain – so it is a very versatile board. I’d say probably go 162 for that one normally, but the way you describe your riding “riding trees, practicing butters/flat tricks, and finding side hits” you could definitely go to 159 there – and the width would work at that size too, IMO.
The Greats is just a little softer flexing than the Standard. The Assassin is another small step down from the Greats, IMO.
I haven’t ridden the NSB Globe, unfortunately, so I can’t say much there. It is supposed to be a stiffer board though, so I’m not sure it would butter as well as the likes of the Standard and Greats.
Hey Nate! Love the in-depth reviews, very helpful. I am considering the YES Standard 156 or the Nitro Team Exposure 157 W. I’m 5’9″ 170lbs, Boot size 11. Thinking about getting the 2020 Vans Aura Pro also. I currently plan on using my Rome 390 Boss bindings for now. I’ve read great reviews on both boards, but your description of what the Standard is built for sounds like my style of riding, but I’m nervous about toe drag compared to the Nitro. What do you think?
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
In terms of the Standard, I think the 156 would be a great size for you. It’s wider than it looks – being 270mm at the inserts vs the 258mm waist. I don’t think you should have too many issues with size 11s, with that width. The only thing would be if you had quite a straight back binding angle and were doing like Euro carving or something. The Vans Aura Pro are also quite low profile, so that gives you extra leeway too. The Team 157W I would predict to be around 273mm at the inserts, so a bit more there, but not a massive amount wider. A lot of wide boards for around that length are around that, so the Standard isn’t far off, when it comes to the width at inserts, a typical wide board for that length.
I think the Vans Aura Pro, assuming they fit you well, are a good match for the Standard.
I don’t know a lot about Rome bindings, but on paper it looks like it would be a good match for the Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
THX for a great website, I really enjoy reading your reviews and find them very helpful!
I’m an all mountain intermediate+ raider, I ride mainly groomers and pow and love hitting natural features, side hits and doing spins, in the park its mainly small to medium jumps and a little bit of basic box trick.
reading your top 10 all mountain boards reviews left me un able to decide between the YES Standard and the JONES Mountain Twin. I’m 175 cm, 80kg and wear 9.5 boots
I would really appreciate your help choosing the right board and right size for me
THX
Hagay
Hi Hagay
Thanks for your message.
There isn’t a bad choice between those 2 boards, and either one would serve you well for what you’re describing, IMO.
Size-wise, for your specs and how you describe your riding, I would go with:
– YES Standard: 156
– Jones Mountain Twin: 157
Size-wise, I think the 157 Mountain Twin is probably best suited to your specs, so that may be the way to make a decision between the 2 boards.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate
Cheers for posting all the reviews! Pretty keen on the Yes Standard but not too sure of size. I’m 85kg, 6′ and size 11.5 boots (US).
I guess I’m probably an advanced rider but I’ve been riding the same board for years – a Rossi One, 163W which I love. Too many dings though and don’t think it’ll survive another season! I’m starting to think it may have been a little on the large size having read your reviews about the Standard but it still falls an inch or so short of my chin when I’m in my boots (K2 Thraxis).
Having read your reviews above I am thinking the 159 for the Standard but kind of enjoy charging and carving when there’s no powder to hit – is it going to be wide and long enough for me? Like you I love the tree runs in powder but I’m not so good when it comes to freestyle – I want a board that’s forgiving enough to give it a good go though.
Also, my bindings are Burton Cartels from a few seasons back – are they going to allow me to use the “slam back” inserts you described in the review? Heading to Japan in a few weeks and dreaming of deep powder!
I really need to find that one board that will do it all as I have to travel to get to the slopes – a quiver’s not an option unfortunately. Any and all other suggestions welcome!
Cheers
Dave
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would be weighing up between the 159 and 162 for you. The 159 should be wide enough for sure, so I wouldn’t worry about that in your decision.
Pros of going 159 include more maneuverability – and better for learning freestyle stuff and since you mention that, it’s worth considering.
Pros of 162 is that it would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed. And since you’re used to a 163, it would be a more familiar length.
If the Cartel’s are Re:Flex with a 4 x 4 disc, then they should be fine for the slam back inserts.
Hope this helps with your decision and hope you enjoy your trip to Japan
Cheers for getting back to me so quickly – just bought the 159! Checked and the reference stance is the same I’ve been riding for years and now I’ve looked at them again I can see you’re right, the cartels should work fine with the slam backs…
BTW, measured my 163 board up again because thought it was a bit odd. It’s now 160 tip to tip – didn’t realise boards shrank! Hoping the 159 will feel about right and got a feeling it’s going to be great fun – thank you for the advice… 🙂
Dave
You’re very welcome Dave.
I was a little confused when you said 163W Rossi One, as it’s come in a 161W but not 163W for quite a few years now. But I didn’t know if maybe you had a really old one and maybe they came in a 163W quite a while back. But yeah, usually measuring a board tip to tip they usually come up a little shorter than their stated length – just the way length is measured. So, I would say you have the 161W.
If you think of it at the time, let me know what you think of it, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow
Will do!
BTW, you’re right about the Rossi One – it is a 163 but not a wide (originally had a 157W and got mixed up…)
Ah, that makes more sense!
hey Nate, I got a good offer for the standard 156 and I am really considering getting that as I need a new board for the season. I am an intermediate rider weighing 160lbs, with size 9s. I am quite athletic I’d say and a happy groomer/park/pow rider so all-mount. Knowing it is a wide board and what you said above, do you think the slow edge to edge is going to be a big problem for me, or do you think I can overcome it and maybe even become better at making turns overall as I’ll be riding a lot this coming season..?
Appreciate the response Nate!
Hi Eliot
Thanks for your message.
I think with the combination of your weight and boot size, might make the 156 feel a bit big – particularly in terms of edge to edge. Depending on what size you’re used to riding and depending on your height (if you can let me know that, that would be awesome), I would say that the 153 would be the better bet for the Standard for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the response Nate! I am 5’9 (177cm) and have only ridden one camber board in the past (salomon craft) but have progressed decent enough from that. I only got the 156 option because it is used for only 220$.. which i would be teaming up with the Now Select Bindings…
You don’t suppose i can adapt to the slowness of edge-to-edge and maybe progress with it?
Alternatively, there is the Rossignol templar magtek 155 (new) for just 220$ and the regular templar 155 as an option if you think it’s more suitable?
ultimately, I do not think the 25.8cm width of the standard will be that hard to adapt to and progress with but i could be wrong. Maybe i just really like the standard cuz of the looks haha…
thanks alot for your time and answer anyways!
forgot to mention also the yes basic 155 (new) as an option too!
Hi Eliot
You would most likely adapt to it, at least to some extent, for sure, but whether it’s going to give you the most enjoyment/progression is another story. Being athletic will certainly help you with that, but I still think it’s a little big overall. The 258mm waist width on the Standard transalates to a 270mm insert width, which is a little wider than you would expect from a 258mm waist. If it was like a GNU or Lib Tech, or another board where the width at inserts tends to be only 5-6mm wider than the width at inserts, then I wouldn’t be as concerned. But from my experience, with size 10s, I don’t usually like anything with a width more than 265mm at the inserts. The likes of the Standard is one of the exceptions, because it does have that narrower waist which helps, and I don’t know what else about the board. But pretty much anything else over 265mm at the inserts I don’t like. With 9s, then it’s more so. And with less weight to drive the board too. I’m not overly athletic, but not un-athletic either (if that’s a word!). So yeah, that’s my experience, which is why I think you’d find it a little big, but I couldn’t say for sure how it would feel for you.
The Templar 155 would be a better size for you, IMO. And would be a good option too, IMO.
The Basic is more freestyle oriented, IMO, so given that you want to get in the pow at times, I think it’s less suitable. But the 155 would certainly be a good size for you, IMO.
hey Nate, I’ve gone for the basic 155! because I feel (based on many reviews) that it is a really good board to advance and progress on.. thanks for the information you provided! I wasn’t even considering the stance width… so I appreciate you helping out in making my decision! All the best to you Nate!
You’re very welcome Eliot. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new deck!
Hi Nate, thanks for all the great reviews. I’m really hesitating between the Slash brain storm and the Yes standard (scared this will be” too much” of a board for me). I’m a solid intermediate rider, going down anything, done a bit of boarder cross, occasional backcountry(would like to increase this) and park, enjoy medium jumps and rails, but have nearly always ridden on the same board for the past 10 years ( I’ve definitely outgrown this one but its been fun), a 2008-9 Palmer Halo with the occasional borrowing of a friends board in these past years.
Im 180cm girl, approx 70-75kg and size 9 boot. I would like to go for the 156 yes standard (as I have heard so much good about it) but worried that with a size 9 I might loose a bit of control because of its width. I could go for a 153 cm but then would loose floatability and for my height the 153 might not be as comfortable.
Do you think I could still go for the yes standard or should I go for another board like the slash( or the greats which has also caught my eye). Also I’m opting for mens boards because of my height; do you think I will find it harder to flex them ( even though I consider myself quite athletic)?
Thank you!!
Hi Zoe
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think that something around that 154 to 156 mark is a good length for you. However, with the Standard, I wouldn’t go as long as 156 for how wide it is for your boots. Can you confirm if your boot size is women’s US9 or Men’s US9? Regardless, I think the 156 will be too big, in combination of length and width, even with a men’s US9 – and further off still with a women’s US9.
So, if you were to go Standard, I would go 153. In terms of float, because of the extra width – and the 153 is wide for a 153 – you shouldn’t loose too much, if any vs a similar board at 156 with a narrower width. The flex of the 153 will feel more manageable than it would in the 156 also. Even the 153 will be wider than ideal for your boots – but coming down a little in length compensates for that, at least to some extent.
In terms of flex, I think with your specs and being quite athletic you should be OK with it. You might find it a little stiffer than I did, but i don’t think it will feel oppressively stiff. There’s always a little getting used to a new board, and going from the Halo, it will take some getting used to, but I don’t think it’s going to be way off.
The Brainstorm is a little easier going overall- quite a playful ride and I think the 154 would be a good length/width combination for you.
Having said all of that, I like the YES Hel Yes for you. It comes in a 155, which I think would be a great size for you – and a better width. And there’s less guessing about flex as it’s designed as a women’s board. And whilst it’s not the exact equivalent of the Standard, it’s close to, but in a better size for you, IMO. It’s a really good all-rounder that I think would handle everything you’re describing really well.
Off the top of my head, the Jones Twin Sister (155) or Jones Dream Catcher (154) would also work, but for what you’re describing, and because you like the sound of the Standard I would be leaning Hel Yes. And in terms of the Twin Sister, it’s a little wider, so might not be as good in terms of width vs the Hel Yes.
Anyway, hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the review. I am so interested in this snowboard but not sure if it fits me. I am a women weighted 130lbs, 162cm tall wearing men size US7 Adidas snowboard boots. I see myself as an intermediate snowboarder want to progress my snowboarding level. I want to but an All-mountain snowboard that can do anything, including riding some park. I found this board seems to tick everything, especially it can be set back when I ride i Japan powder. But one thing I am not sure id if this men board too wide/too long/too stiff for me?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Hi Chin
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise I would recommend something around 144-147 for your specs, and that would be only if that length was a good width for your boots. Unfortunately, I would say the 149 (shortest size for this board) would be a little too long, and too wide – and the combination of being too long and too wide, would make it overall too big, IMO. If it came in a slightly narrower 146, then I think you’d be in luck, but the 149 is just a little too big, IMO. The closest women’s equivalent is the YES Hel Yes. That in a 146 would be a great option for you, IMO. You can also check out more women’s all-mountain options at the link below:
>>My Top 6 Women’s All-Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!!!
Thank you for you reviews, they are very nice… I’m a Spanish snowboarder (intermediate level) , 1,85 meters and 84 kilograms and I’m thinking change my board. I have 11Us boots, Northwave TF2. Currently I have got a Bataleon Goliath 158 and I would like buy a polyvalent board. Reading you, I discovered Yes Standard 2020 and I think that board is nice for me. I readed that this board floats well in deep powder. I love powder, off track, carving, little jumps, swicht and a little bit of Park…
Do you think that board is good option for me??
Do you think 159 is my size?
I saw Yes PYL too, but I think this board is more dificult for me….
Thank you very much from Spain!!!
Best regards!!
Hi Javi
Thanks for your message.
And thanks for increasing my vocabulary – I had to look up what polyvalent meant! But essentially you’re wanting something more versatile. I think the Standard would suit what you’re describing well. And I agree that 159 would likely be the best size for you. It’s on the wider side, even for 11s, but 159 is going down just a little from the length that I would put you on for a narrower board, so I think it would work well. And it’s not going to be super-wide for 11s either. And not too much wider than the Goliath 158W. So yeah, 159 – and I think the Standard would work for what you’re describing.
Hi Nate,
I’m wondering how this board would compare to the basic? I love the versatility, easy catch-free ride and fast turn initiation of the basic, but I’m looking for something that has a faster base, better float and a little more response. Im the type of rider that likes to butter through powder stashes, pop off side hits and weave through trees, but I also enjoy those lazy days of cruising around and slashing pow with the boys. Would you recommend this board? I currently ride a 155 basic and I feel like I would size down to a 151 with the standard because of the width. I’m in 9.5 boots.
Hi Marcel
Vs the Basic, the Standard is definitely more board – and would give you more in terms of response at higher speeds and better for carving – and just faster in general. The base isn’t ultra fast, but it does give you more than the Basic, as long as you keep it waxed (as it’s a sintered base vs the Extruded on the Basic). In terms of float it’s a little better than the Basic generally speaking, even when centered but if you make use of the “slam back” inserts to get really set back on powder days, then it’s a good step above the Basic in powder.
It’s not as buttery as the Basic, but I find the Basic really buttery. The Standard is still pretty buttery though vs most boards – and certainly more buttery than most, if not all, that I’ve ridden at it’s flex level (6/10). Not going to be as quick edge to edge size-for-size as the Basic, at least not at slower speeds anyway. The Basic is super agile at slow speeds. The Standard doesn’t match that – which is typical of stiffer boards – and also typical of slightly wider boards. But if you were to size down to 151, then I think you would find it close to or just as agile at slow speeds as the 155 Basic – as it would be a similar width and shorter (shorter typically equals more agile). Still going to be a little stiffer, but being shorter will likely cancel that out.
The Standard is in general a board that I found to be a little livelier/snappier than the Basic, so it’s got that going for it for side hits. The Basic still really fun for that, but the Standard just gives you a bit more spring/life.
Going 151 though would also counteract some of the increase in speed and float vs the 155 Basic. I’d say it would still give you some extra benefit there, but it would be somewhat negated by going shorter. I could recommend what I think is a good size for you for that board, if you wanted. I would just need your height and weight as I already have your boot size. It might be that the 153 is a better option?
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
BTW, I’m also considering Lib Tech T.Rice Pro HP C2 Snowboard 2020. 155 or 157.
Is it good for me?
Thank you.
Hi Allen.
Yeah, I think it would work for what you’re describing. But I think I would be slightly leaning towards the Standard still. I found the Standard that little bit better for carves and I think it would be easier for practicing jumps, switch etc than the T Rice Pro. If you did go T Rice Pro, I’d say probably 157, based on what you’re describing, in terms of getting the most out of your carving/speed. But the 155 would be easier for practicing jumps, spins etc. Even though the waist width is the same on the 157 as it is no the 156 Standard – it’s overall narrower than the Standard. The Standard is wider at the inserts and at the contact points.
Hi Nate.
Thank you for your prompt and generous reply. I think I will take this combination, size m Falcor and Standard 156 to embrace the coming season. You really provided very effective help. Thanks again. 😀
You’re very welcome Allen. Hope you enjoy your new setup!
Hi Nate,
I’m about 180cm, 80kg, with size 10 Vans Infuse boots(28cm).
I usually stay on groomers, having fun from carving and speed, spend very little time in trees and parks. Recently I plan to practice switch, spins and some jumps.
I’m considering buying this board of 156 or 159 together with buying my first union binding. Please kindly give me some advice about these:
1. Which length of this board would you think is best for me?
2. Is Force or Falcor suited for this board? Or is there and other brand that has more suitable bindings(while taking into account my riding preference)?
3. Will size L union binding too big for my boots? (I was told by a shop employee that these boots have a wide toe and size L Union would be better)
Thank you very much for your review and reply. 😀
Hi Allen
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, for this particular board, I would look at the 156. The 159 is going to be quite wide for your boots – which is great for getting low in your carves, in terms of avoiding boot drag, but can make the board feel sluggish, and slow edge-to-edge. The 156 is already on the wide side for 10s, so going down to 156 makes sense. I demoed the 156 and really liked that size (183cm, 84kg, size 10 Vans Aura) and never had any issues with boot drag – and didn’t feel sluggish at all).
The 159 would give you more effective edge and more stability at speed, but I think the 156 would be the better option overall.
Both the Force and Falcor would work on the Standard, but in your case I would be leaning towards the Falcor. Just because of how you describe your riding. They will give you a bit more response/power over the Force. And they still have some forgiveness and good board feel, so should be fine for when you’re practicing jumps, switch etc.
Size-wise for bindings. I own a pair of Vans Infuse also (size 10), and I always ride with Medium Union bindings and haven’t had an issue. But the toe box is certainly wider than it is on my Vans Aura – and Union’s sizing is up to 10 for medium and 10+ for Large, so you could large if you’re worried about it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I’m 6’0 180lbs 10.5 US Salomon synapse boot K2 lien AT large bindings. 156 or 159? Thanks
Hi Thomas
You’re very similar specs to me, and I would definitely go 156 for this board. So, that’s what I’d also recommend for you. You could ride the 159 but it’s going to be quite wide for your boots, IMO, and might feel a bit sluggish edge-to-edge with the combination of width and length. I think the 156 would be the best size for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, like many before me I’m going to try and take advantage of your awesome advice!
I like the look of the standard but I fall in an awkward size range (I think). I’m 87 kgs (192 pounds) without gear and 180cm (5’11”). I’m a US size 9.5 boot.
Based on weight I’m leaning towards the 159. Given my boot size though and what I’ve read I’m tempted to go for the 156. Do you think I could get away sizing down this far with this board?
If not, do any other options come to mind? I’d say I’m a solid intermediate level rider.
Cheers mate
Hi Jamie
Thanks for your message.
Generally I would say around 159-160 for your specs and solid intermediate, so 156 would be sizing down. Being a wider board though, sizing down is a good idea, IMO, for your boot size on that board. So the 156 would certainly work. It’s just weighing up whether or not that’s sizing down too much or not. I like the 156 and I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, US10 boots – so not too different in terms of specs. I do tend to ride a little shorter than what my specs suggest, because I prefer the extra maneuverability and that shorter length for more freestyle stuff – as I like to ride trees a lot, find side-hits and hit the park too. And I’m probably not the most athletic rider in the world, so going shorter just enables me to have more power over the board.
For you, I would say it depends on how you ride. If you prioritize stability at speed, float in powder, hard carving etc more than you do agility and freestyle, then 156 might feel a little small for you, even with the extra width. But in that case I probably wouldn’t go 159, just because it’s getting a little wide. In that case I would go for another option – something like one of the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Check out the descriptions and score breakdowns there to find something that sounds like it would suit you (and there are full reviews for most of them too, for more details – links on the page).
If how I described myself sounds similar to you, then I think you’ll really like the 156 Standard.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate.
Thanks for these precious reviews. I am pondering two boards, and would love to get your gist on it: Standard 162 vs Assassin Pro 163W. I noted you ranked them in different categories, so would really like to get the pros and cons of both boards since you rode them. On my end, 180cm tall, 100kg light from the French Alps. I have been snowboarding for 30 years, so can say that my park days are behind me and I am more now surfing around on piste and off, trying to pass down the passion to my little ones. I am therefore after a great board that can do anything, including allowing me to think I can still jump around when the occasion is there;)
Cheers.
Hi Cedric
Thanks for your message.
They are in different categories, but I would say that the Standard is on the all-mountain-freestyle end of the all-mountain spectrum and the Assassin Pro is on the all-mountain end of the all-mtn-freestyle spectrum – if that makes sense! – so quite close in terms of style of board, even though they’re in different categories.
I think both boards would be fine for what you’re describing. Leaning towards the Standard, just because it’s slightly softer flexing and you might prefer that for riding with the kids, depending on what they’re level is. i.e. just a little bit easier for riding at slower speeds.
Size-wise, I think you’re right on the money – assuming you have a boot size that puts you into wide sizes.
Hope this helps
Thanks. I am indeed in the size 10.5/11 so I was looking at MW to W boards.
Hi Cedric
Is that US10.5/11 or UK10.5/11?
Us sizes I guess as my boots are DC Judge 2019 in size 44 mainland Europe.
Yeah I think with DCs a 44 = 10.5 US.
You could probably get on the 162 regular width Assassin Pro, if you wanted to. Only if you have quite a straight back binding angle and/or you like to really rail your carves, then the wide might work better. If you know you prefer wides, then the 163W still definitely an option though, regardless.
YES Standard 162 is even wider than the 163W Assassin Pro – at the inserts especially. From measuring other sizes of the two I would predict the following:
Assassin Pro 162: 265mm at the inserts
Assassin Pro 163W: 273mm at the inserts
Standard 162: 280mm at the inserts
Standard 159: 275mm at the inserts
Given how wide the Standard is, you could almost size down to 159 if you wanted to. But if you know the kinds of widths and lengths you like to ride, then the original sizes all good, of course.
What up Nate? I’m looking for an upgrade on my current setup. Bought a yes basic circa 2011 and rode it for ~40 days living in Snowmass and learning to bomb the grooms. Moved backed to Texas and got maybe 6 days in six years. Flash forward I moved to NM and the snow has been epic this year, close to 20 days this season with happy of it in pow. I think I’m progressing quite well and have spent most of my time in the trees this year. Only terrain I’ve stayed out of is double black tree glades as they’re a bit steep and tight. Could maybe push those types of lines if I had someone towing the line for me. Looking for a board that will progress with me for trees, side hits, good and pow but stable and carvy for off piste chunder. I’m attracted to the standard cause it seems stiffish with a damp but lively ride. Afraid to go with something too freeride because im afraid of something too unforgiving as an intermediate rider.l or something that is too slow turning which might get me in trouble in the trees. Any thoughts? BTW I’m 5’11 160-165 riding some older (2012) Burton cartels and a new 11 Burton swath.
Hey Zack
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard would work well for what you’re describing. I have heard some people say they’ve found the Standard to be not that fast edge-to-edge, but everyone I’ve heard say that are riding size 9 boots. With 10s, I didn’t find this at all on the 156 Standard. It’s sizing down a little from what I would usually ride for an all-mountain board, but IMO the Standard is best sized down a little unless you have bigger boots. I definitely found it a lively board and edge-to-edge whilst not lightning I found to be fast – and perfectly good in trees. Never going to be like a short/wide, powder board in trees – but then those have other limitations, but pretty good.
With your specs, I think the 156 is your best bet too (I’m 6’0″ and 185lbs) – so a little bigger – but smaller feet – so with 11s and your specs I think 156 is the best option and should work well, IMO.
Certainly since you like to ride powder, trees but still want to carve and do side-hits, and are at a roughly intermediate level, then I think something like the Standard would work well. To check out some other options, you could look at:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Or you could look at something more powder/tree specialized, like the YES 420. But usually I would only go for something like that as part of a quiver, rather than as a daily driver.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I love your reviews, but now I have a hard time deciding on my new board. I have been snowboarding only for a couple of seasons but progressed really fast and ride everywhere (black diamond, …). I have been skiing all my life and I am an experienced, aggressive skier. This year in snowboard lessons, they put me in Intermediate-advanced classes. I would consider myself a low to mid-level intermediate. Anyways, I was looking at your reviews for the Yes Standard 2019 (162) and the Capita Mercury 2019 (161). I love speed, carving and powder. I have little interest in freestyle. I am 6’0, 2015-220 lbs and size 10.5 K2 Maysis.
Am I looking at the right boards (and size)? Or would you recommend anything else? Any advice to help me decide would be appreciated.
Hi JP
Thanks for your message.
Looking at the sizes and the fact that you are mostly focused on speed, carving and powder, I would say that the Mercury 161 is the best bet for you.
For the Standard, if you were to go for that, I’d probably be leaning towards the 159, just because of the width. Width-wise, the Mercury 161 is likely to be around 268mm at the inserts (based on measuring a different size), which is a good width for 10.5s, IMO. The Standard 162 on the other hand is likely to be around 280mm at the inserts, which is quite wide for 10.5s, IMO. Even the 159 is likely to be 275mm at the inserts, which is still on the wider side, but since you would be dropping length, that would compensate for that. But then you’re loosing effective edge, which is going to effect stability at speed and carving. Powder-wise, you’d be fine, because the extra width gives you back that surface area, but for carving and speed, I think the Mercury 161 would work better. And it’s also more what I would describe as all-mountain bordering on freeride, whereas the Standard is more all-mountain bordering on freestyle.
The Standard probably better for low intermediate than the Mercury – so the Mercury would be a slightly steeper learning curve, IMO, but overall would suit what you’re describing and your specs the best, IMO.
Another option would be the Jones Explorer 162 – which is similar to the Mercury in that it’s all-mountain bordering on freeride, but still good for a solid intermediate rider.
Also, anything like the NS West, Jones Mountain Twin, Niche Story, Nitro Team Gullwing, those types of boards would also work, and be a little more low intermediate friendly, but I think the Mercury would be a good fit – and since you’re progressing fast and have aggressive skiing experience behind you, the Mercury becomes more doable for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much Nate,
I couldn’t find the Mercury in 161, but I managed to get a really good deal on the Standard 159 … maybe that’s better for now for a smoother progression. I paired it with the 2019 Flux XF after reading your reviews. I hope to get everything before the weekend …
I will keep an eye on the Mercury for next year.
I enjoy your reviews and the way you normalize it, it makes it really easy to compare everything… which I’m sure was the objective. Good job!
Take care.
Cheers,
JP
You’re very welcome JP. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get your new setup out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi there Nate,
I am 5’10, 210 lbs, size 9.5 Burton boots. Intermediate to advanced rider for sure. I have been riding a Ride Fuel from like 2003 that was a 156 cm. I rode that thing from 5’6 and 150 lbs to 5’10 and 210 lbs. I consider myself to have strong legs, and be very athletic (even if a little pudgy 😉 ), so I was able to manage in all conditions from powder to groomers and the park (although the board was pretty awful in the park and had no flex). I also like to ride powder and the park primarily, but definitely bomb the groomers when the powder is fleeting. Anyway, I sold it (hooray me) after all these years, and now want a new all-mountain board. The Yes Standard looks like a good option for me. I am thinking 156 (I don’t want to lose the responsiveness by going too long, or too wide with 9.5 feet), but all of the recommendations say 159 due to my weight. Basically, I think I can make up for the weight issue and ride a 156 (seeing as I rode the 156 Ride Fuel all these years), but I wanted your take on it. What say you as far as size? If you think this is a bad fit, you have another recommendation for me as far as a board for all-mountain?
Hi Kirk
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would usually say go longer than 156 for your specs. The Standard is a board you can size down on a little though, IMO. Just whether 156 is sizing down too much or not. You would certainly be fine on the 159, but that is probably getting a bit wide for 9.5s. One thing with going for the 156 is that it will feel softer flexing than it feels for someone lighter riding it. So whether or not that makes it feel too soft is hard to say. The other thing is for stability at speed, given that it probably has less effective edge than your old 156 Fuel, which was in all likelihood all camber, being that old. If that’s the case then the effective edge was probably longer, so even though the length of the 156 is the same, probably the Standard is a little shorter in that sense. Being a bit wider, I don’t think you’d have too many issues with float in powder on the 156 if you’re on the slam backs.
If you want to go a little longer and narrower, then you could look at some of the options here:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Looking for some perspective on sizing for a complete setup of board, boots, and bindings. I am strongly considering the Yes Standard for an all mountain board. I’m 6′, 180-185#s with a 28cm foot length. It seems like I fit into the 11s best for boot size. I am still experimenting with my binding angle but will always be at least +12/-6. if not greater.
BOARD: Yes Standard 156 or 159. Leaning towards the 159.
BOOTS: I’m considering the Vans Infuse and Adidas Tactical ADV for boots.
BINDINGS: Looking at the Burton Cartels, Union Strata, and possibly the Union Falcor.
Thanks your help!
Hi Stefan
Thanks for your message. I think you’ve definitely got it narrowed down to some good options for a setup there, and in terms of boots and bindings, everything that you’ve got there would match the Standard well, IMO. It’s just a matter of fine tuning your decision. But you can’t really make a bad choice out of those, IMO.
BOARD: Size-wise, it’s a close call between the 156 and 159. You are very similar specs to me, but with slightly longer feet/boots. (I am 6’0″, 185lbs, 27.3cm feet, size 10 boots). I really like the 156, but with longer feet/boots, the 159 becomes more appealing. Also, I like to ride quite a bit of freestyle and in the trees, so going a little shorter is preferable for me. I like to ride fast sometimes too, but I’m not a speed demon compared to some. If you do less freestyle/trees and favor speed & carving, then I would go 159. But if you do a fair bit of freestyle/trees, like to slow it down sometimes and play around, then the 156 becomes more appealing. The 156 will be fine for 11s though, so if you did want to go for that size, width shouldn’t be an issue. Overall, I would be leaning towards 159 for you, but you could certainly ride the 156, depending no style preferences. Also to consider, if you are a more intermediate rider, then the 156 comes more into play. If you’re more advanced, then I would be leaning even more towards 159.
BOOTS: Both good choices, both match the Standard well, IMO. If you have wider feet and/or or higher arches, then go Tactical ADV. Otherwise it’s 50/50.
BINDINGS: Really can’t go wrong with any of those, IMO. Only thing with the Falcor and Strata is that you would need to go large. Union bindings are quite long in the baseplate/footbed. I don’t think they would be too big for the Standard (156), but that would be the only thing to think about. I ride Medium Union, so I’m not sure of the measurements of the Larges, but the footbed on the Strata Medium is 25.8cm and the footbed on the Falcor Medium is 25.2cm. For reference the footbed on the Cartel Large is 25cm (when fully extended). So definitely no worries with that one being too big. The upside to the longer baseplate of the Union’s though is that (assuming their not too big) they do provide good leverage for better response (IMO). Between the Strata and the Falcor, I would be leaning towards Falcor if you prefer to ride fast/carve a lot and leaning towards Strata if you have more freestyle in your arsenal. The Cartel is closer to the Strata in that sense, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate. I added the Union Atlas into the mix but it looks like the 2020 Atlas will have a slight update on the foot bed. and there are no good sales going on at the moment. Any idea what the base plate length is on the Atlas? Ultimately, I am thinking I am going to go with the Burton Cartels that I can get on sale. I went with the Adidas Tactical ADV size 11. Would you recommend going with the Medium or Large Cartels?
Hi Stefan
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t measured the Atlas unfortunately.
For Cartels with a Tactical ADV 11, you really could go both and be fine.
I think you would fit in a medium if you wanted to. I ride a Vans 10 on medium Burton’s and from what I’ve measured the Tactical ADV is another half size more reduced than that – and the Vans are already pretty reduced. So, if the Tactical ADVs are like a 10.5 of my boot you shouldn’t have any issues – I’m not maxing anything out in medium Burton bindings.
One advantage of going large, however, is that it will give you more leverage, with that longer base plate.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I would also appreciate some sizing advice.
Height: 5’9″
Weight: 178lb
Stance: 21″
Boot: 9.5 US
Currently have a Ride Agenda 158cm which has been awesome. Looking at this board as an upgrade and seems perfect as an all mountain board. Size wise I am struggling between either 153cm or 156cm
Cheers
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message. I though I had answered your email, but it seems it got buried in there – easier to manage comments here than in my email – but whilst I was transferring the website, I had heaps in the email. I had read yours and though I replied but just checked now and realized I haven’t. Apologies for that.
With your specs you could definitely ride either for this board. I wouldn’t normally say as short as 153 for you, but with this board you can certainly go shorter. That said, I am still leaning towards 156 for you. It’s going to be a wider ride for 9.5s, but you could be riding up to 158, 159 for a different all-mountain board, so 156 is already sizing down a bit. The 21.5″ reference stance should work for you too (though the 20.5″ stance on the 153 is also close to your 21″). One of the big reasons I’m leaning towards 156 over 153, is that on the 153 you would be dropping quite a bit in terms of effective edge. Going 156 keeps means you don’t drop as much in terms of effective edge.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Great site, I’ve enjoyed it and it’s very helpful, keep up the good work!
Would like your opinion on a board and set-up. I’m 5’10” – 5’11”, 174lbs and size 10.5US (Vans Infuse that I’m thinking of buying as well) foot length is 27cm-27.5cm.
I snowboard in the north east, so Icy conditions, and want a board with good hold on ice. I don’t touch the park but will fool around on bumps and jumps on the side of a trail. I go everywhere else on the mountain, primarily groomers where I like to carve and trees . I love powder and want a board that is good in powder for those odd days we get some. I also venture on moguls when the conditions are right (not too Icy). Finally I want to learn to butter (but it’s not a priority). I feel I need an all-mountain – freeride set-up.
I’m getting all new gear and am thinking of:
Board: YES Standard 2019 (153 or 156)
Bindings: Burton Genesis X or Genesis (I want a binding that can use the boards set-back for odd powder days)
Boots: Vans Infuse size 10.5US – I like that I can play with the stiffness
I’m open to any other suggestions on board, binding and boot, if you have any…
Thanks,
Peter
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
That sounds like a great setup for what you’re describing. I wouldn’t say that the Standard is all-mountain to freeride. It’s more in the middle or slightly on the freestyle side of all-mountain. However, it still sounds like it would suit what you’re trying to do – and has those slam back inserts for powder days. I think the 156 would be a great size for you.
And the Genesis X and Vans Infuse would work well with the Standard, IMO. The Genesis too, though it’s just bordering on being a touch too soft.
You could also look at the Niche Story, which is also great in icy conditions but a bit more directional, bit more freeride Oriented. It would be a weight up between 156 and 159 for that one, leaning towards 156. Or the Rossignol One LF, which I would say go 159 for that one.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the advice. I had the niche story and Rossi one lf on my short list also. I would be happy with any of them. Of the 3 standard, story or one lf, which board in your opinion held an edge the best on ice?
Hi Peter
Really hard to say without having ridden all 3 back to back in icy conditions. And they are all really good in those conditions (and none invincible in those conditions either!), in my experience. I would say the Story on instinct is perhaps top of the list. I did ride the One LF and Standard back to back and maybe just the One LF. So, if I had to hazard a guess, I would say Story, One LF, Standard, but they’re all very close, IMO.
Thanks again. For them niche story 156 Should I put union Falcor size M and vans infuse 10.5? Would that work together? I will let you know how it goes.
Hi Peter
That sounds like a really good match for the Story. Technically Union Mediums only go up to 10 but I would imagine that the Infuse 10.5 would work well with the medium, being lower profile. And Union used to rate their mediums up to size 11, but changed their sizings, so for Infuse 10.5s I would say you’d be fine with mediums. And because the Falcors have quite a long baseplate, I would say medium is a better fit for the board compared to going with the Large.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking for an aggressive All-Mountain board for both hard/icy and powder snows, but not park.
From your reviews, my top picks are Yes Standard, Burton Custom X, Never Summer West so. But it gets more complicated when it comes to length. Could you please help recommend the right length for these three boards?
I’m 5’8, 154lbs, shoe size 9. Thank you so much!
Best regards,
Ray
Hi Ray
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for those 3, I would say:
Standard: 153 or 151 – but since you want something aggressive, probably 153
Custom X: 154, or you could go 156 but I’d be leaning towards 154 for you, for this one
West: 154 or 156, but again, I’d be leaning towards 154. But if you were going to ride a 156, then I’d do it with this one before I did it with the Custom X
If you want other options too, I would also look at the YES PYL, GNU Mullair and Lib Tech Ejack Knife for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate. I wear an 11.5′ boot, I’m 175 lbs. and 5′ 10″. In my case, what size of the Yes Standard board would you recommend?
Hi David
It’s a weigh up between the 156 and 159 for you, IMO. I like the 156 (6’0″, 185lbs, 10 boot) but I would usually ride 159 for this type of board, but with 10s and being on the wider side, I like to size down a little. With 11.5s, the sizing down because of width isn’t really a thing for you. Also, I like to throw in quite a bit of freestyle and like to be able to slow things down and play around, and like riding in the trees, so going a little shorter anyway, otherwise I would probably ride more like a 160, 161 for an all-mountain board (with a more narrow width).
Width-wise, I think you would get on the 156, which is still relatively wide, but it might be pushing it a little if you ride with a very straight back binding angle. But if you ride with a reasonable amount of angle on your back foot, and like to ride a bit of freestyle and/or are more of an intermediate rather than advanced rider, then the 156.
But if you don’t ride freestyle much or at all, and are an advanced rider, then I would go with the 159 for you.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
Wrote a quick comment/question yesterday but I don’t think it published. Really appreciate the time an effort you put into contributing to the community and helping folks like myself make informed decisions.
I used to hit Jackson once a year, but hadn’t been on a mountain for a decade until Breckenridge this year. I grew up skateboarding and surfing, so it was easy to get back into the swing. With plans to make more regular trips again, it’s about time I stop renting and get myself into an all-mountain.
I like bombing, and don’t spend much time in the park, but I’d like to start hitting more jumps. Ideally looking for a board that can go fast but still something playful that i can slow down and pop around on. Hit the sides with some maneuverability, without being squirrely.
I’m 39, 6’1″, 155-160lbs with a 10.5-11 boot.
I am considering:
Jones Ultra Mountain Twin
Never Summer West
Yes. Standard
Slash Brainstorm
Jones UMT is at the top of my list right now and was considering the 158W for maneuverability and still accommodate my boot. (planning on Union Force and Adidas Tactical)
Your thoughts would be much appreciated – board, size, etc.
Thanks,
John
Hi John
Further to my other reply. I think the Force and Tactical ADV would be a great match for the Mountain Twin, West, Standard and Brainstorm. But if you were to go UMT, then I would look at a stiffer boot and binding setup. But as I said before, if you’re like me, you may not get on with the UMT in terms of when you want to be able to slow down and play around a bit.
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your replies. Seriously very helpful. Went ahead and ordered the Yes. Standard 156, Adidas Tactical ADV 10.5 and Union Force bindings (L). Super pumped. My preference was for the Jones MT 158W but wasn’t having much luck finding it. Ordered a 157 just to check it out. Thanks again!
Ho John
Awesome that you have your gear sorted. Sounds like a great setup to me! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, thanks for your work and taking the time to provide the community the info we’re looking for.
I’m looking to buy my first board. An all mountain. I definitely like to charge but also like playing around.
I’m considering:
Jones Ultra Mountain
Yes. Standard
Never Summer West
I’m a little stuck on the Jones Ultra but am concerned about its stiffness.
I’m 39yo, 6’1” 155-160lbs 10.5-11 boot
And was considering the 158w
Any guidance on board and size would be super appreciated.
Thanks!
John
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Personally I didn’t feel the Ultra Mountain Twin (UMT) for playing around. It’s a great board for charging on. Really fun in that sense, but I didn’t like it for slowing down and playing around. Since you like that, I would say regular Mountain Twin over the UMT. But also the Standard and West are great for that too, so I would recommend those over the UMT.
Between the West, Standard and MT, I would say that the West is the loosest feeling, but it’s still not overly loose. They’re all quite stable feeling, without feeling “locked-in”.
Size wise, I would say:
~ UMT or MT: 158W probably. You might be able to get away with 157, depending on the boot (if it’s a 10.5 and you ride with +15/-15 binding angles or similar and/or have low profile boots. With 11s or 10.5s with a straighter back binding angle in a non-low-profile boot, I would say 158W)
~ Standard: 156
~ West: 157W (or 156/159, depending on boots, as per above)
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First of all thank you for the many board reviews. They are really helpfull to me. (and i’m sure to many others).
Hope i’m not annoying you too much with another sizing dilemma:
I’m doubting between the Yes standard 2019 156 or the 159.
My stats: 6.3 feet tall, 180 lbs and foot size US 11.5
I ride a lot of groomers and powder, and i also like to butter and jump a lot.
I always ride in Duckstance 15-15.
The 156 is currently for sale in Europe, (100€ discount)
Do you think the 156 would fit me? My main concerns are that my boots won’t fit on the board and the width stance might be a little to small.
Hope you can help me out here.
Big up from Belgium,
Fiel
Hi Fiel
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be the best length for you, for this board. If you had smaller sized boots, then sizing down to the 156 makes sense, but with 11.5s, the 159 won’t be too wide for you.
You could still ride the 156, if you’re wanting to ride something shorter and it should be fine width wise for 11.5s, given that you ride +15 -15. It will be on the narrow side of what you can get on, but as long as you don’t have long profile boots, should be OK.
Overall though, I think the 159 would be the best option for you. The 159 will be better in powder, more stable at speed and better for long wide carves. The 156 would be a little more maneuverable at slower speeds, but the 159 should be maneuverable enough for you with 11.5s anyway, so I don’t think that’s a big concern. The 156 would be better for butters and for smaller jumps, ollies etc.
Also, like you say, the stance width might feel too narrow for you at 6’3″. The reference stance is 545mm (21.5″). You can extend that out to 586mm (23.1″) but personally I like to stay on or close to the reference stance, whenever I can help it. The 570mm (22.5″) stance on the 159 is probably a better stance width for your height, though everyone has their personal preferences. The board is made to be ridden with a narrower than average stance width. I felt comfortable on the 545mm reference stance on the 156 (I’m 6’0″), where I’d usually ride more like 560 to 580. But with 3″ on me, you might want something a little wider.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate ,
I have to say that your review made me order a Yes Standard 156 , even if I dodn’t intend to change my deck this year . I paired it with Burton Malavita (M) bindings and now I am in doubt about boots purchase (9,5 size) . I am 180lbs / 5.8.
I ride 90% grooms /piste in resorts and I am wondering which boot is suitable for me , Burton Ruler (flex4) or Burton Photon(flex 6) . According with charts Ruler is more all mountain orientated , and since am I an intermediate rider with 10-14 day /year . I am afraid that Photon can be too stiff for me . Can you help me with a professional advice ?
Thank you in advance and keep up with the good reviews !
Hi TNT
I would say that the Ruler is a 5/10 flex and the Photon an 8/10 flex. So I would be leaning more towards the Ruler for you between those 2. Since the Standard has a flex feel (by my feel) of 6/10 (though YES rate it 7/10 for flex, I don’t feel it as that stiff), then I would be looking at boots with a flex rating around 6/10 or 7/10.
So, between those 2, and at an intermediate level, I would recommend going with the Ruler.
Other Burton options (assuming you’re wanting to stick with Burton), would be the Swatch and Imperial. You could also go Ion and SLX, though they are expensive options and the Swath, Swath Boa and Imperial would be better intermediate options as well.
Also check out the following for more options:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’ve have been reading through all these comments and I’m still not sure what size to get.
I’m 5’6 at 140lbs and have boots with size 7.5.
I know there is someone at the very beginning, who has basically almost the same specs and you recommended the 151 to him.
But as I’m leaning more towards powder and groomer ripping, I’m thinking about ordering the 153 to have more float in pow and more stability on the groomers.
Does that make sense to you?
Or do you think, that stepping up one size will be too stiff for me?
Would it still be possible with my weight to butter around on the rockered nose/tail?
In the end I’m just not sure, whether the 151 will give me enough float in pow to enjoy a full day in the fresh stuff…
You see – I’m pretty lost.
Please share your thoughts with me 😉
Hi Manu
Thanks for your message.
I would still go with the 151. I would actually be debating between 149 and 151 for you, for this board. If you were leaning towards more freestyle type riding, then I would say go 149, but I think 151, given that you want it to be good in powder, is a good option for you. I don’t think you’ll have issues with float on the 151, with your specs. Noting, of course, that you’ll get the best float out of this board in the “slam back” inserts.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the informative reviews!
I’m getting back into snowboard after a 10-year hiatus and could use some help selecting a board. I was an intermediate/ low advance rider back in the day. I’m looking for a fun all mountain board that can handle powder days (about 30% of the time). I will be riding with my wife and two kids (ages 8 & 5). While I occasionally go off on my own and seek out aggressive steep terrain, I spend most my time on the groomers herding my kids and ride more freestyle. I guess I’m looking for a board that can do it all and I’m leaning towards the Yes Standard.
Do you think the Standard is the choice? And are there any other boards that you would suggest?
I’m 5’8 and weigh 187lbs with a muscular build. I wear Burton Photons in a size 10. My stance is 22” (maybe a bit wide) with my front set @ 15 degrees and my back @ 0 degrees. My old board was 154 but I’m thinking I should be looking for something closer to a 156. I think the Standards 153 might be too small for my weight.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Joe
Hi Joseph
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard is a good option for you, based on what you’re describing. Certainly something all-mountain (aka do-it-all) is a good idea. For other options, check out:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But yeah, the Standard would definitely work for what your describing.
For you, I would go with the 156. I think that would be the right size for you taking into account all your specs and how you want to be riding. And with a 21.5″ reference stance, should suit what you’re used to well.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply and all your helpful info!
I spend last weekend enjoying my new YES. Standard. Appreciate your guidance on helping me select the perfect board.
TY!
Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for the update. Awesome to hear that you’re enjoying the Standard!
Hi Nate,
Great review and very useful comments!
I’m a small guy (5.4, 110lbs, 8.5 US boot) with an intermediate level (10+ yrs riding) getting used to faster runs all over the mountain, medium jumps and new tricks. I was looking for a stable board that could follow me everywhere with some directional profile for those powder days. I came across a few options like the Yes Standard, Yes Typo, or Ride Wildlife. All of these in their smaller size: 149 or 150. Even considered the Yes Basic in 146 but tried it and found it a bit too mellow and no directional. And the Jones Twin Sister, a women board but with maybe better sizing options.
I’m leaning towards the Standard 149 bc it fits my stance perfectly (19.5”) and have all of the above, but I’m concerned it would be a bit too wide for my feet or stiff to ride for my level (far from big airs).
What would you recommend?
Many thanks!
Hi Pablo
Thanks for your message.
Width-wise, I think the 149 would actually be fine for 8.5s, so in terms of width, I think you’re fine there.
Ordinarily, I would say that something more like 143cm would be a better length for you though. But if you’ve been used to riding boards more around that 149, 150 size, then the 149 should work fine. But I certainly wouldn’t go longer than that for your specs. And if the stance width is what you like, then that’s certainly a plus too.
The Twin Sister 143 (or 146), is also an option if you wanted to go for a shorter option. But if you’re used to and comfortable with boards around 149, then I think the Standard 149 could be a good option. Whilst YES rate it 7/10 for stiffness, I’ve never found it to feel quite that stiff (more like 6/10 to my feel). Being a little under the weight that you would usually ride for that length will make it feel a little stiffer though, but I don’t think it should be too stiff for your level overall. If the Basic felt too mellow, then it should be a good step up from that.
But if you’re worried about it being a bit too much, the Typo 149 would certainly be an option too – it’s probably around the same width as the Standard 149, but softer flexing. But just a touch stiffer than the Basic. And whilst it’s not majorly directional, it’s got a very slightly more directional feel than the Basic.
I would be weighing up between the 143 or 146 Twin Sister and the 149 Standard. And between those, it would depend on whether or not you’ve been used to/comfortable riding boards around that 149 range. If so, then I’d go Standard. If you’re used to riding smaller, then I would look at the Twin Sister.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate. It totally helps. I’m currently riding a 149 Rome Factory Rocket so used to that length. Although I’ve tried some boards on 146 and I surely feel good there too. Playful and faster edge to edge. When trying to go over, like 150 or 152, it definitely get things a bit tougher…
So I ended up going with a 149 Standard to see where it takes me. I believe it’s a solid option to progress plus it’s a great looking board! And if it’s not for me, well, at least I’d know what to do next!
Thanks for the tip, helped me deciding! Keep up the reviews and good advice. Cheers.
You’re very welcome Pablo.
If you think of it at the time, I’d love to hear how you get on with the Standard, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reviews. I’m strongly considering the Yes. Standard 2018/19 for its all-mountain abilities. I’m looking for confirmation that this is the right board for me, and trying to determine if a 156 or 159 would be best.
I’m 39 years old, have been riding for over 20 years – I’d say intermediate/advanced, and do a bit of everything. My favorite is powder days in the trees. I like a playful board with easy turning, butters, spins, etc. I enjoy jumps (but in my older age am avoiding the massive doubles in the park), but am not a fan of rails. I prefer a rocker, but want more edge hold than a typical rocker provides for the groomers and icy days. Most of my time is spent in the trees when possible so I need something that’s responsive and reliable. But I also love to bomb full speed down a steep hill every now and then just to feel alive.
I’m about 5’ 10.5”, weigh around 185, and wear a US size 10-10.5 boot. I currently ride a Sierra Reverse Crew from 2011, 162cm – which is too big but I can still ride it well.
Let me know if I’ve found my ideal board, and what size would be best for me. Thanks.
Hi Bryan
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 would be a great size for your specs/what you’re describing.
And overall, I think the Standard (in the 156) would be a great option for what you’re describing.
The only thing would be that you certainly feel the camber more than the rocker, so if you wanted something that feels the rocker a little more, and has that slightly more playful feel, then you could also consider:
~ Never Summer West – not as good in hard/icy as Standard (IMO) but still good
~ GNU Rider’s Choice – as good in hard/icy, but not as good at speed or in powder
But that’s certainly not to say that the Standard is unplayful, or has a heavy camber feel, but if you wanted a little more playful/rockery feel, then those might be a little more suitable. I did find the Standard easy to butter and spin.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate!
The other board I was looking into is the Arbor Element, which uses their ‘system rocker’ technology. That design appears to still provide a nice rocker feel, while still having the ‘grip tech’ contact points that helps get an edge in on the harder surfaces.
Let me know if you think that might give me a little better all mountain performance for my style of riding. Or if I may want to still go with the Yes. Standard.
Thanks again, your feedback is very helpful.
Hi Bryan
I think the Element ticks most boxes – and has better edge hold than most all-rocker boards. But still not the same edge-hold as something like the Standard – and not (IMO) as good at speed. So, I think it would be an improvement in terms of edge-hold, but maybe not a massive improvement in other areas (without being able to say for sure, as I’ve never ridden the Sierra Reverse Crew). But yeah, would give you that rocker feel, with a bit more edge-hold.
Just to throw another option in the mix – the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker might be a good option for what you’re describing. It’s not a board that I’ve ridden, so can’t say first hand. But based on specs and what others say, could be a good fit for you.
Hey Nate,
first of all thank you for your fantastic reviews. They really helped me pinning down my selection.
I am torn between the Arbor coda Rocker and the Yes standard. Both seem to be really good boards.
I’ve been riding a Burton custom flying V (154) for the last 6ish years and love the playfulness and agility of it. The only reason I’m upgrading is that i want something a bit stiffer and more freeride orientated.
Which one would you recommend?
Thank you in advance and Happy Riding!
(For reference: 177cm tall, ~62kg light, been riding for about 14 years)
Hi Finn
Thanks for your message.
In terms of stiffness, I would say the following, in my experience:
~ Custom Flying V: 5.5/10
~ Standard: 6/10
~ Coda Rocker: 7/10
Just for reference.
The Standard is a more stable feeling board, in comparison to the playfulness of the flying V – largely down to the camber between the feet – so whilst it’s not a huge amount stiffer (IMO), it is still less playful/loose overall.
I would say that both the Standard and Coda Rocker are on the more all-mountain-freestyle end of all-mountain, being that they are both designed with a centered stance. The Standard you can setback in the “slam back” inserts, which makes it a little more freeride, but overall I wouldn’t say they are the most freeride oriented all-mountain boards. But if you’re looking for something more stable/precise and less forgiving/playful they are that, compared to the Custom Flying V.
If you want something more geared towards freeride, but still all-mountain, then there a few options (like the NS West, Jones Mountain Twin, Niche Story, Slash Brainstorm, Rossignol One LF and Nitro Team Gullwing – or something like the Jones Explorer or Capita Mercury). See:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Size-wise, something around 153, 154 would be a good length, IMO.
For the Coda Rocker I would go 154.
For the Standard, probably 153, but if you can let me know your boot size, and then we can look at the width too.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hey Nate,
Your dedication is top notch. I have read just about every comment and am still on the fence between the 2019, 156 and 159. If you could please put my mind at ease… I’m 6ft, 155lb and rock size US12 tm2 xlt’s. My angles are usually about 18/-6. I have to order the board online and like others want to make sure my boots will fit.
Stay sharp
Ed
Hi Ed
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I would be looking at 156. With 12s, however, it might be pushing it in terms of width with +15/-6 angles. The 159 would be fine, IMO, width-wise. The 156 might work for the width, but there’s some risk it would be too narrow. If you really like to rail your carves, then I would play it safe and go for 159.
Hope this gives you more to go off
This thread has been very useful and I also wanted to share the info I have.
I’m 192 cm, 195 lbs, size 10.5 (US) feet, and I use 10.5 K2 Darko boots and large Union Force bindings. My boots are 33 cm long along the bottom; I know they’re the opposite of having a reduced footprint but I like how they feel so I want to stick with them. Right now I use +12 -6 binding angles but I’m still playing around with things, not sure what I like. I’m a beginner but so far I’m progressing well. I don’t care about tricks, I just want to do all-mountain riding.
Based off my own calculations and YES’ recommendation I bought a 2019 Yes Standard in 159. It measures 27.7 cm edge-to-edge width under the center front binding, which seems perfect to me given my 28.5 cm feet and shallow binding angles. With my boots on the board I have 1.5 cm toe overhang and 2.0 – 2.5 cm heel overhang. I did consider the 162 but I’m still in the 160 – 210 lbs weight range of the 159, I like the idea of more maneuverability with a shorter board, and I worried that a 162 would be too wide relative to my bare feet. BTW I love how light this board feels!
The crazy thing is that I measured a Neversummer West 164W in the shop and it only had a width under center front binding of 27.4 cm. For that board I probably would’ve been looking at the 160W (there wasn’t one there to measure) which would’ve been even narrower. My current board has been a 2018 Process Flying V 159 with 25.5 cm waist width and about 26.8 cm under the binding inserts.
I haven’t had a chance to ride the Standard but I’m excited to try. At home strapped into the board it doesn’t seem hard to get on edge. I’m looking forward to how easy it should be to flat base it.
Hi DTM
Thanks so much for the info. Really helpful for others to know. That’s roughly what I though the width at the inserts would be on the 159 (based on measuring the 156) but it’s good to get confirmation there.
The Standard has that mid-bite – which makes the width at the inserts wider than normal compared to waist width. Never Summer boards, from the ones that I’ve measured tend to have a smaller than average difference between the waist and the inserts.
If you think of it at the time, let me know what you think of the board, once you’ve had a chance to get it on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate
Great Review, I am thinking of getting a board. I’ve done a tone off research and I think the Yes – Standard would be a good fit for me.
I would say I am a beginner-Intermediate depending on definitions. I like to ride switch. I am not a park rat but I do plan to learn some basic tricks.
11.5-12uk boot size, Weight 210lbs, 6ft2.
I was thinking 159 for the standard.
Given all the above would you say that board and size would work for me?
Thanks
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would say if you’re more intermediate than beginner, then the Standard could work for you.
For your specs, I would actually be leaning towards the 162. And I think the 162 is going to be a better call for your boot size. For UK12s the 159 might be a little too narrow. With low profile boots and +15/-15 or similar binding angles you might squeeze onto it, but the width of the 162 would be a safer call, IMO.
I would put you on something around 164 as an 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
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)
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
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?
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.
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
Hi Rudi
Thanks so much for your input!
Great to hear the experiences of others on this board.
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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
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
Thank you for your help. Also, which one would be more nippy – quicker edge to edge?
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.
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
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.
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 ??
You’re very welcome Ed. Hopefully you can find something that works well for you
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 ?
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.
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
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
Awesome cheers for that Nate
So leaning towards the standard, have just sold my Burton Custom bindings & Burton Moto boots
What bindings & boots would you recommend for this board
Cheers Phil
Hi Phil
For the Standard I would go with something with around a 6 or 7 flex out of 10, ideally for both boots and bindings. Check out the following for some options.
Boots
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps but let me know if you want more options in that flex range
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!
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.
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
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
Thanks Nate, I think I might need to demo some boards before purchasing.
Cheers, Mark
You’re very welcome. Definitely always helps if you have the opportunity to demo something for yourself.
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
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?
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
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!
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
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!
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.
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
You’re very welcome Tim and thank you for your kind words!
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
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
Thank’s a lot, I apreciate your answers ! 🙂
You’re very welcome Nicu
Hi Nate,
Is this board also suitable for riding steep mountains ?
Thank you
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
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?
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.
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
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!
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
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?
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
Thanks for the detailed response. I decided to stick with the Standard but go with a 151 due to the waist width. Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Louis. Let me know how you get on with the 151.
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!
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.
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.
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
Thanks a lot for quick answer. Sry, forgot to specify the boot size – it’s 10US
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
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
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!
Hi Vincent
You’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome season!
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-
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
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
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 !
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
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
You’re very welcome Scott. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new board!
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?
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.
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.
You’re very welcome – hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome season!
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!
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.
Hi Nate, I do mostly groomers and powder, so will look towards 159. Thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome. Hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome on it!
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
You’re very welcome Jason. Hope you have an awesome season!
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
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
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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!
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?
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.
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!
You’re very welcome Will!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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?
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!
You’re welcome Will. Enjoy the new board!
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!
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
Thanks Nate for the reply. I’ve pulled the trigger on the 154 Standard 2017! With a Now Drive bindings. Looking forward for the season!
Nice work Paul! Hope you have an awesome season!
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?
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!)
Ah damn, that’s a shame, what bindings did you ride with the board? Looks like something from salomon?
Hey Jarod
Those are Flux bindings – Flux DSs.
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
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
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!
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Cheers Nate, much appreciated