Hello and welcome to my YES Standard Uninc review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Standard Uninc as an aggressive all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Standard Uninc a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: YES Standard Uninc
Price: $649
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Mid-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium bordering on medium-stiff (6.5/10)
Rating Score: 91.5/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Out of the 14 men’s aggressive all-mountain-freestyle snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Standard Uninc’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Standard Uninc’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle |
Price: | $649 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Smooth/Snappy: |  |
Dampness: |  |
Playful/Aggressive: |  |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | Directional Twin (YES's "directional volume twin") |
Setback Stance: | Centered |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Felt normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
153 | 253 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
156 | 258 | 150-200 | 68-91 |
159 | 263 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
162 | 268 | 180-220+ | 82-100+ |
Who is the Standard Uninc Most Suited To?
The Standard Uninc is essentially a traditional camber version of the Standard - though it is also a little stiffer. But that camber profile (as well as the stiffness) does change the personality of the board quite a bit. Essentially very similar to what the YES Ghost used to be before that was discontinued.
It's the kind of board that's best suited to someone looking for a board that's aggressive but not overly aggressive - you don't have to be on your game 100% of the time - you can get a little lazy on it. But it's more aggressive than average and when you want to ride it aggressively it complies.
Apart from powder and jibbing (both of which it's still not terrible at), it's a really well rounded board that can do a bit of everything and go anywhere. In powder, it wouldn't be great (we didn't have any to test in) but would hold its own in shallow powder.
Not for a beginner or lower intermediate rider, but good for solid intermediate rider's and up, IMO.
The Standard Uninc in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Standard Uninc is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: YES Standard Uninc 2023, 156cm (258mm waist width)
Date: February 23, 2022
Conditions
Sunny with cloudy periods. 100% visibility.
Temperature was pretty cold, ranging from -10°C (14°F) to -12°C (10°F) through the day. -13°C (9°F) with wind. Wind pretty much non existent though.
24 hour snow: 0cm (0")
48 hour snow: 0cm (0")
7 day snow: 8cm (3")
On groomer: Hard pack with icy patches for the most part. But mostly hard pack until we got lower down the mountain and then it was really icy.
Off groomer: Crunchy and icy for the most part. But still doable higher up the mountain.
Set Up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 550mm (21.7″)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 273mm (10.75")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 3140grams (6lb 15oz)
Weight per cm: 20.13 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.59 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 200 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 models. The Standard Uninc is one of the heavier boards on the scales that I've weighed, in terms of grams/cm. However, it is a wider than average board - and I don't calculate grams/surface area, which would be more ideal. And more importantly, it felt like a really normal weight on snow, which was surprising but welcomed.
Powder
We didn't have any powder to test in on the day but based on specs it wouldn't be amazing, but a little better than the average traditional camber board.
It's got a couple of things going for it for riding powder.
Firstly, the directional volume twin shape gives it just a little more powder performance versus a true twin shape. Secondly, it is a little wider than normal, giving it a bit more surface area to work with. Though, if you size down the length because of that width, like I did, this is largely cancelled out. And lastly, it has YES's "slamback" inserts, which is an extra set of holes behind the main insert pack, which allows you to set the board back further for powder days.
But it's pretty close to being a centered twin and it has a traditional camber shape, so never going to be amazing in powder.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Really nice on a carve. You can get deep and it holds on to a carve really well. A good balance between nice long drawn out carves and shorter/sharper carves.
Turning: Turns with very little effort for its flex. Which impressed me, given the width at inserts is 273mm, which I'd typically find wide for turns. But there's something about that mid-bite that makes turning easier than you'd expect.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, impressively nimble when riding slow given its flex and width. Though, when I say given its flex, it's not super stiff - just a little stiffer than medium. But it is more agile than I was expecting all the same.
Skidded Turns: You can't get away with everything, but it's not super catchy or anything. There's quite a bit of forgiveness and allows you to skid or slash your turns most of the time.
Speed
Felt really nice and stable at speed. Could open it out to a really decent pace without getting the wobbles.
Was a really fast conditions day when I tested it, so it was hard to get a read on how good the glide is for flat sections - but felt really good on the day.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Not a lot of it to test in, but doesn't feel like it would get easily bucked around (something that extra weight helps with) - and if it did get a little bucked, it would be pretty easy to correct.
Trees/Bumps: Quite nimble, so does well weaving between bumps and absorbs bumps well going over them as well.
Jumps
So much fun to get air with this board. Just writing this makes me crave getting back out onto it.
Pop: There isn't oodles of pop but decent enough. And most of the pop is easy to access and it gives a little more when you wind it up, too.
Approach: A really good balance between being stable and also maneuverable enough to make necessary adjustments. Holds its line really well when you commit to a line, but you can speed check and adjust your take off point easily as well.
Landing: Can really stomp a landing. But at the same time it's quite forgiving of errors when you get it wrong. Strikes a great balance between those.
Side-hits: Super fun. Has everything you want for sidehits, IMO.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Medium to Large is it's sweet spot, IMO, but good for everything.
Switch
Rides switch really well, which wasn't really a surprise. Didn't feel catchy in transitions to switch or anything like that and felt really similar in each direction.
Spins
Apart from it's weight, which as I've said a couple of times, you don't really feel on snow, it's really well suited to spins. It's got decent, easy pop and takes off/lands switch well.
Jibbing
Not ideal for jibbing but also not terrible. Decent enough.
Butters
You've got to throw your weight into it a little to get it to press, but it's not super difficult to do - and it's got a really similar feel when pressing nose or tail.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
JUMPS | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 4/5 |
SWITCH | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPINS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 4/5 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
BUTTERING | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
POWDER | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 91.5/100 |
Overall, the Standard Uninc is a board that is capable everywhere and just utterly fun. Had such a blast riding this board and didn't let me down in any aspect.
It's biggest weakness is powder (and jibs) - and if you like you board super light, it's not that (though it doesn't feel heavier than normal on snow either), - but for everything else, assuming at least a solid intermediate skill level, this board can take it anyway and do everything well.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Standard Uninc, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other aggressive all-mountain-freestyle snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Standard Uninc compares to other aggressive all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hi Nate,
This is an awesome site you are running – thanks heaps for all the great reviews and advice you provide.
I’m getting back into snowboarding again after a decent break so looking it replace my trusty 2003 Ride Timeless. I’m 5’’10, 70kgs and about 6 in terms of ability. The timeless is a 159 which I’ve always thought was a little big for me but I loved its speed and ability to hold an edge even in the icy stuff.
These days I’m still keen to have something I can carve with and get a decent speed on the groomers (chasing skiers!), but also have some fun with, practice my switch and be able to do some cruisey runs with the kids (until they get too quick for me!). Don’t see much powder so that’s not a major consideration, and don’t really do anything in the park unless I’m following the kids down the little bumps and boxes – like a few natural side hits and jumps though.
So I thought the 153 standard uninc might work well for me, but keen to hear what you might think. I’ve recently tried a Salomon Hucknife (fun but chattery at speed), mountain twin (enjoyed that but was looking for a bit more stability carving) and a 2020 burton freethinker (felt a bit cumbersome and harder work at slow speed).
Thanks heaps!
Hey Simon
Thanks for your message. Based on everything you’re describing, I think the Standard Uninc would be a good bet. In terms of sizing, if you could let me know your boot size, which will help determine what I think would be the best size for you.
Hey Nate, thanks for the reply and advice, really appreciate it – good to get confirmation I’m on the right track. I knew I’d forget something, so I’m a size nine for boots.
Thanks Simon.
I would go 153 for your specs for the Standard Uninc. It’s going to feel small vs the 159 Timeless (and you should feel it considerably softer/more playful – I found the Timelss very stiff) but it’s a lot wider. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156, but the reason I’d go 153 is because of that width vs your boot size. That said, given your used to a stiff, aggressive 159, I think you’d also be fine with the 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome Nate, that’s made my mind up, thanks. I’m down in New Zealand so just got to wait for the season to start now! Thanks heaps!
You’re very welcome. Hope it’s an awesome season down there this year!
Hi Nate,
I need your opinion regarding the most efficient sizing for all conditions on YES-Standard and YES-Standard Uninc.
I’m 5.9, 176lbs(with full gear on) and have boots size 8.5.
As per YES sizing table i can go for 151 on Standard which i think is a bit small and 153 on Standard Uninc.
Thank you in advance
Hi Max
Thanks for your message. I think the 151 would be too small. I’d be weighing up between the 153 and 156 for both. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158 but given your boot size and the width of the Standard/Standard Uninc, you’d def want to size down from that, IMO. If you were in like 9.5 to 10.5 boots, then I’d be erring 156 but with 8.5s I’m erring more towards the 153. Both would work, but I think the 153 would be your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
First, your site is great. I started snowboarding in the early ’90s and it is just incredible how much more information is available now. Thanks for creating a site like this and for taking the time to answer all these posts.
Second, I wanted to pick your brain about a new board. Like I said, I have been riding (on and off, mostly off) for about 30 years. I recently got back into snowboarding (now in Europe from the US initially) and rented a 2019 Burton Custom Flying V, which I thought I would like because my last snowboard was a 2008 Burton Custom. It wasn’t terrible, but something just didn’t click. Seemed a little slow and tough to carve with, and I took a couple nasty falls where I lost my heelside edge (which hurt a lot more now that I am older).
I was thinking about buying a new board and I would have first thought about a Burtom Custom (probably 162W since I am 6’1″, 190lbs and size 13 boot), but given my recent experience I am reconsidering. The Yes Standard Uninc in 162 looks like a really good option. So, what I wanted to ask you is whether you think the Flying V is meaningfully different from the traditional camber such that I shouldn’t write off the Burton Custom yet. How do you think the Burton Custom compares to the Yes Standard Uninc (you describe the Burton Custom as aggressive, but I never really thought about it that way–I always thought it was pretty middle of the road)? What boards are in that Yes Standard Uninc, Burton Custom category that you might also recommend (Jones Mountain Twin for example)? And last, what bindings do you like with the Yes Standard Uninc? Is something like the Burton Genesis too soft and is something like the Union Falcor too hard?
Thanks a lot. Keep up the good work!
Hi Julio
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I would describe both the Custom (camber) and Standard Uninc as being more aggressive than normal, but they’re not ultra aggressive. Compared to boards in the 90s, they’d probably be considered more on the playful side or right in the middle. But yeah, they’re boards that you can get more aggressive with and they can handle it, but they’re not the kind of boards you have to ride aggressively all the time to have fun with (some boards you’ve got to be riding them hard or they’re not that enjoyable).
The Custom Flying V is a very different board. That Flying V profile gives a loose feel and is way more prone to washing out vs the Trad camber version. They are very different boards. They share the same construction and same shape and everything, but that camber profile does make a big difference. So, I wouldn’t say that you should necessarily write off the Custom. The Standard Uninc is still better in terms of edge hold, when in comes to hard/icy conditions, in my experience, but the Custom Camber is considerably better for carving and edge-hold (and most things really, except for powder) vs the Custom Flying V version, IMO. Custom Flying V is bordering on playful and what I would call “semi-loose” vs the “semi-locked in” feel of the Camber version.
I often put the Custom, Standard Uninc and Nitro Team Camber in a similar grouping, so if you’re looking for that trad camber feel in a mid-flex, then those 3 are really good options, IMO and all have a similar personality.
The Genesis and Falcor are both within range of the Standard Uninc, IMO, with the Genesis being on the softer side for it, but still doable. The Falcor being on the stiffer side but still definitely in range. I would personally put the Falcor on it before the Genesis, just because I prefer to err on the slightly stiffer end of a good range for binding to board flex matching, rather than on the softer end. Both would work, but I’d be leaning Falcor personally.
I would be looking predominantly at >>our top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride bindings list to match with the Standard Uninc.
The Mountain Twin is a little less aggressive. As in, it won’t as aggressive when you want to, but it’s also a little easier going, so you don’t have to put as much into it. It’s a really good all round board, but it’s on the more playful side. Not what I would call playful necessarily, but right in the middle. You can get a little playful with it, but you can also get a little aggressive with it. It’s right in the middle. If I was to put a number on it, I’d say MT was a 5.5/10, with 1 being the most playful and 10 being the most aggressive. With the likes of the Custom Camber/Standard Uninc/Team Camber being more of a 6.5. The Custom Flying V more like a 5/10. In terms of playfulness. The MT is still a more stable (as opposed to loose) feeling ride than the Custom Flying V, though.
Size-wise, I think the 162 would work well for your specs for the Standard Uninc. And yeah, if you were to go Custom Camber, I think the 162W would be your best bet. If Team Camber, then the 162W as well.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for your comprehensive and thoughtful reply. I wish the people at the snowboard store where I live were half as helpful!
-Julio
You’re very welcome Julio. Always happy to try to help where I can
Hi Nate!
How much more aggressive would this be compared to the Standard/Mercury/Custom? I would say I am an intermediate rider trying to learn bumps and trees better, while loving hard carves and ease of turns.
My specs are 175lbs, 5’10, and size 10 boots – would you say a 156 would fit me well? I have have the 156 Standard and it’s great but I feel like it’s missing something, not sure if the extra aggressiveness would warrant a 153 instead in the Uninc.
Thanks!
Hi Wilson
Thanks for your message.
I would say the Standard is fractionally more aggressive than the Mercury but not by much. I’d say it’s slightly less aggressive than the Custom but not by much either. The regular Standard is the least aggressive of the 4, in my experience. Whilst the Standard Uninc is on the more aggressive side, it’s something that you don’t have to ride super aggressively all the time. You can ride a bit more casual with it too, but it does have the ability to allow you to ride it more aggressively.
I would go 156 for your specs. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158/159 and whilst with 10s you want to size this board down a bit, I wouldn’t size it down as much as 5-6cm.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate! Need your opinion 🙂 I am really torn between Standard Uninc / Standard / MT
I am 179cm height, 70kg weight and boots US 12 (ION’s 2023, quite low profile in comparison to TM2 I tried before).
I am staying on slopes groomers at ski resorts most of the time each season. I prefer high speed edge to edge riding, doing jumps if I spot a right place on piste and practicing switch ride and spins last times… I rather avoid jibbs and powder.
First I am wondering if i should size down regarding my boots size US 12 and high speeds edge to edge riding style. As for width well… my current old board (Burton Royale 158 mid wide board) I measures is around 265mm width at inserts with 530mm stance so looks like I should be fine with any of these boards as they seem to be even wider than my current one.. But I also wonder if going down to 156 will be stable enough at high speeds and or icy conditions.
Then yeah same dillema 😉 Standard Uninc vs Standard or MT. I am a little worried of flex in Uninc in terms of my body weight if it will be still playful regarding switch, pops, 180s etc.
Appreciate for your advice. Regards
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
Since you’re not really riding powder, my first instinct is the Standard Uninc. But it will be the least playful of the 3, and if you’re looking to keep it a little more playful, then one of the Standard or MT might be better bets. I never rode the Royale, so I can’t compare it to that, unfortunately.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 156s for both the Standard and Standard Uninc. I would be your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156/157, so 156 right on, IMO – and a good width for your boots. For the MT, I’d go 156W.
Surprised that the Royale is only 265mm at the inserts, if it’s a mid-wide, though boards were narrower back then, so maybe. Did you measure it on the under side of the board (from metal edge to metal edge) or on the top sheet?
Standard Uninc especially good in icy conditions, in my experience with the Standard very close. The MT still good in icy conditions, but not quite as good as the Standard, in my experience. So, I don’t think you’d have any issues, particularly if you went with one of the Standards, in icy conditions.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate, thanks for this review! I’m close to pulling the trigger on the Standard Uninc but I’m stuck choosing the right size for this board. I’m 6’1 195 with a size 13 boot. I currently have the Yes Typo 163W which has worked out pretty well for me but I understand that this is a pretty wide board and the suggestions have been to size down. Would 159 work with my boot size? I typically ride with a 18 degree angle in the front and close to 0 on the back. Thanks in advance!
Hi Ash
Thanks for your message.
With 13s, I don’t think you need to size down for this board. It is wide for most, but for 13s, it’s a good width, IMO, so no real need to size down in your case. I would be leaning 162. That doesn’t make the 159 wrong though. It’s doable, but you’d be sacrificing some stability at speed and float in powder – but getting better maneuverability easier to do tricks etc.
Also note, that whilst I don’t think it’s wide for your boots, it is still certainly wider than the 163W Typo. At inserts the 163W Typo should be around 271mm at the inserts (assuming a 22″ stance width and that’s measured on the underside of the board), with the Standard Uninc 162 being more like 283mm (again assuming a 22″ stance width). So quite a bit wider. So overall the 162 Standard will feel bigger than the 163W Typo. The 159 Standard is still wider than the 163W Typo, so assuming you haven’t had boot drag issues on the Typo, you should be OK with it width-wise, if you did want to err shorter. It’s around 278mm at the inserts. With a nearly 0 degree angle on your back binding, I would be concerned that the Typo was too narrow, but it sounds like you haven’t had any issues with it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks, Nate! This is really helpful. Luckily, I haven’t had the toe/heel drag issue with the Typo but I also haven’t been carving as aggressively with that board as I’d feel comfortable doing with the Standard. I’m going to go with the 162 since I’d rather go for stability and float. Appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Ash. 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,
Just rode the Standard Uninc over at Mammoth and it was incredible! Amazing edge to edge hold and the board was so stable at speed. Really happy I went with the 162. Thanks for all your help! I highly recommend this board to anyone who is on the fence.
Hey Ash
Thanks for the update and awesome to hear you’re getting on well with your Standard Uninc. Appreciate the follow up and your insights.
Nate,
Thanks for recommending, I have about 10 days on this of slushy or icy conditions. Board was exactly what I was looking for medium damp/poppy, stiff enough with enough torsional flex to carve but still be playful. Can grab this board and ride on anything but a deeper powder day. I would still give the edge to magnetraction and specifically lib, gnu, or Rossi boards on ice but this gets the job done with less drag feeling in softer snow.
Hey Joe
Glad to hear you’re getting on well with your new board – and thanks for the update and insights. Much appreciated.
Hi Nate, thanks for all the great reviews!
I’m currently stuck between a couple board options. I am 5’9 160lbs (range from 155-165 sometimes up to 170ish) with a size 9 boot. I ride mostly east coast on a Salomon Assassin 153 that I use as my park/all mountain but want something that is a little stiffer to progress on but can still hold it’s own in powder for the yearly trip west. Currently torn between the Yes Standard Uninc and the Jones Mountain Twin. Also torn between sizes on both boards. 154 vs 157 on the MT and 153 vs 156 on the Standard Uninc. Which board/size do you think would best suit my needs?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your messages.
For the Standard I would be leaning 153. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong, but is on the bigger side for your specs, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain size” at around 157, but with the Standard being a wider board, it’s a good idea to size down and going to 156 wouldn’t really be sizing down. 156 wouldn’t be wrong, but I’d be leaning 153 – and you’d still be getting an overall bigger board than your Assassin 153.
For the Mountain Twin, it’s a closer call. The 157 is still on the wide side for 9s, but not as wide as the Standard 156. I would still be erring towards the 154, but again, the 157 wouldn’t be wrong – and I’d be a little more inclined to go 157 MT vs Standard 156, if you were wanting to err longer.
For icy conditions the Standard is the pick for me, but the MT isn’t far behind in that respect.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate! Love your reviews.
I’m very interested in the Standard Uninc for next season however I’m torn between a couple options. I am 5’9 with size 9 boots and typically weigh between 155 and 165, occasionally going close to 170. I’m currently riding a Salomon Assassin 153 but want something a little stiffer and a little better in powder. I’m torn between the Jones MT and the Standard Uninc, also torn between sizes 154 vs 157 on the MT and 153 vs 156 on the Standard Uninc. Any input you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the site it’s very helpful.
I’ve been riding a 154 terrain wrecker and I plan on upgrading to the standard uninc. Im 168 lbs, 5’7″, i wear rome libertine boots size 9.5, my current stance is 20 inches, riding duck 15 and -15. I’m mostly into carving hard, jumps, sidehits, althought im slowly buidling my freestyle skills ( took a long time off).
So the question: 153 or 156? Normally i would have picked the 156, but I read about the width and downsizing etc. thanks
Hi Sal
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would downsize to 153 in this case. It’s going to feel bigger than your 154 TW even in the 153, IMO. Because of that width, I think the 153 would be just right. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156/157, so in a narrower width, I would say 156 for sure, but because of that width I’d go 153, if it was me.
Hope this helps with your decision
thanks much appreciated
You’re very welcome Sal. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
The Standard Uninc sounds like a beast and i’ve been looking to upgrade for a while. I’m 5’10” 165-170lbs (closer to 165) with size 12 boots (although I am an 11.5 shoe normally so could potentially find more true to size boots at some point but in 12s for now). I don’t really spend any time in the park so definitely looking for more of an all mountain type set up, but still want to be quick to initiate turns and agile edge to edge. Where do you think I should go size wise?
Hi Zach
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 156 length-wise. The only question mark would be width. The 159 isn’t out of range either (and would give you enough width) but for your specs and what your describing, my instinct says 156.
In terms of the 156 width-wise, you’re looking at around 273mm at the inserts, assuming a roughly 550mm (21.7″) stance width. If your stance width was wider, let’s say 580mm (22.8″) you could add a couple of mm to that. But let’s assume that you’re looking at a width at inserts of 273mm. With size 12 boots, assuming average outsole profile (but if you can let me know the make/model of your boots, then could get this more accurate), you’re looking at around 33cm (330mm) in sole length. If you ride with something like a 0 degree back binding angle (e.g. +15/0 or something like that), then you would be looking at total overhang of around 5.7cm (or 2.85cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering). That’s more than what I would be comfortable with.
However, if you’re riding with a 15 degree angle on your back foot (e.g. if you ride +15/-15 or similar) then you should get around 1cm of leeway – meaning more like 4.7cm total overhang (or 2.35cm per edge with perfect centering). That I would be much more comfortable with. I mean if you were doing eurocarving or something, then it might still be too much overhang. But I’ve ridden plenty with that level of overhang without issues. Now if you’re somewhere in between 0 and 15 degrees on the back binding, note that it’s not linear – i.e. going 3 degrees isn’t going to give you much more – not going to give you 3/15ths of that 1cm, for example. Each 3 degree increment gives a greater overhang savings than the previous 3 degree increment (hope that makes sense!). So going to 3 degrees or even 6 degrees won’t save you all that much.
That was also based on your boots being 3cm longer than mondo on the outsole. But if you have lower profile boots, you will get more leeway too. If you were to go to low profile 11.5s, then you’d likely be good at any binding angles.
Note also that a lot of wide boards are a similar width at inserts to the 156 Standard Uninc.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot Nate! I ride with Burton Motos. My typical stance is 21.5-22″ think bigger than 22″ would feel weird for me and my binding angles are +15/-9
If that changes things between 156 and 159 please let me know
I also am not carving super deep like euros or anything but do like to ride with some speed and do like to carve where i can
Hi Zach
In my experience Burton Motos are pretty low profile – and with a -9 back binding angle and how you describe your carving, I think you’d be fine width-wise on the 156, so that’s what I’d be leaning towards. No guarantees, but I’d be confident personally with that setup that it would be a good width.
Hi Nate! Thank you for the best site about snowboards. I ask for your help in the selection: according to your recommendation, I have been riding Frontier for 2 years, but now I want to update my equipment for more confident arcs and mastering small jumps on the track. It seems I need a full deflection and cruelty above 6, but not super tough. Is standard uninc a good choice? I plan to cut better (now I’m almost lying down on the slope, but I get a breakdown) and start jumping from side lines and bumps, learn to ride a little with the other foot. I’m also looking for shoes instead of Aura pro, I’m looking at nidecker Altai or deeluxe (there are a lot of them in my region, but there are almost no reviews). Very grateful for the answer!
PS: Atlas Bindings
Hi Petr
Thanks for your message.
I think the Standard Uninc could work well for you. It would give you a bit more in terms of carves and something a little more aggressive. Also better for jumps and side hits, IMO, than the Frontier. The Frontier is better in powder, but overall the Standard Uninc is a board I preferred and something that should be a good step up from the Frontier and suit the style of riding you’re describing, IMO.
I haven’t tested any Deeluxe boots, so I can’t help there. But I did get on my first 2 pairs of Nidecker this winter and I really liked them. I didn’t get on the Altai (I rode the Kita and the Rift) but based on the Rift (which I felt at around 5.5/10 flex) and Kita (which I felt at around 8.5/10 flex), the Altai should be around the 7/10 flex that they rate it at (or maybe a touch softer – around 6.5/10 flex), which would be a good match with the Standard Uninc/Union Atlas, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you for your help! I bought Standard unink and am very happy with it! It holds super well on ice, comfortable rigidity and some kind of magic in the speed of turns. Small jumps from the first descent began to turn out. It may be interesting for you to read about Deeluxe Deemon shoes, bought a pair of such sets, an incredible custom liner and an excellent design of the Brandon model. Otherwise, everything is not so good, the lacing system actually turned out to be strange, the side BOA tightens the ankle, and the central BOA tightens the foot and shin. Considering that the upper part of the shoe is very wide, I had to tighten the foot and still get a very loose fit of the lower leg (there is no powerstrap in the BOA version). It turned out to be a fairly hard boot with a very mobile top. I got used to it and no longer paid attention to this problem, and yesterday on the track I had a plastic burst on both boots at the same time, which is sewn into the tongue and holds the BOA! I fell hard enough, but without injury. I took the shoes to the store, but I’m not sure that the warranty will work for mechanical destruction. Today I watched a new pair of shoes and suddenly I liked Nidecker Kita. I read that you tried them – please tell me how do you like them? How can they be suitable for the Standard? I understand that the shoe is hard, but I weigh 90 kg and height makes a big and powerful lever of pressure on the shoe. Perhaps, in my case, the rigidity will not be so deadly? Thank you in advance!
Hi Petr
Glad to hear you’re liking the Standard Uninc. Sorry to hear about your boots experience – but was good to hear that it didn’t cause injury at least.
I really liked the Kita. And they have completely independent upper and lower sections of the boot – the side cable tightens the 2 lower cables and front boa tightens the remaining 4 cables (from ankle up to top of shin).
They are pretty stiff. But they’re not oppressively stiff, if that makes sense. I would say around an 8/10 flex, bordering on 8.5/10. For the Standard Uninc, they’re probably the stiffest I would go, but still within a good flex range – just the stiffer end of that flex range. But with your specs, I think they could work with your setup.
Thanks Nate! I bought a Nidecker Kita, it’s really much tougher than Deeluxe Deemon, but rather due to more support in the shin area. Super comfortable. It’s a little difficult to control the board at high speed, but I think it’s a matter of habit. In the Yes Standard Uninc topic, perhaps you can tell me why you rated its carving properties at 4? I think this question interests a lot of people, because if you need a board for trails (there is a board for powder or there is no skating in this style), then Uninc comes out with a very steep variation. Thank you for your work!
Nate – really appreciate all your work. Right now I’m between the standard uninc and the jones mountain twin. I’ve had a regular standard and I loved it but I’m looking to just try something else. I like to really hit the whole mountain and ride fast as well as mellow out with the wife. I’m worried about the full camber of the uninc not being as mellow as maybe sometimes I need it to be. Also with tree runs I worry about the quickness of the turns compared to the regular standard or the MT. But other than that the board sounds awesome. Is the torsional flex there on this board? Because I’ve felt one and it felt pretty stiff and heavy, definitely stiffer than I read in reviews. Any advise? Thanks man!
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I found with the Standard Uninc that there’s a good bit of torsional flex, so it does ride as intimidating as it feels. I found I could ride it pretty mellow when I needed to and didn’t find it too catchy or anything for a full camber. That said, you can’t get as mellow with it as the regular Standard. It is more aggressive and a little stiffer. But I didn’t find it hugely stiffer. A step down in terms of powder. The MT is pretty similar performance-wise to the Standard, but it is a bit of a different feel. I would say you can get even more mellow and slashy on it – so it kind of sits on the other side of the Standard than the Standard Uninc. But really close to the other side, if that makes sense.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
Great review on the Standard Uninc! Would the 153cm work for my boot size 9? I’m 5’7 and 155 lbs. Or would I be better off on the Standard 151cm? Thanks again for your expertise!
Hi Jay Kim
I would be leaning 151 for the Standard/Standard Uninc for your specs. As you point out, the Standard Uninc’s smallest size is 153, so you’d have to go Standard if you wanted it in 151. 153 wouldn’t be wrong, IMO, but I think the 151 would be more optimal for this particular board. The 2024 model of the Standard Uninc is getting a 149 by the looks, but not a 151 unfortunately. And I think the 149 would be a little small. For reference I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154. But with the width of this board, with 9s, I would be more inclined to size down 4cm, than just 1cm.
Hope this helps with your decision
Great review Nate, You convinced me. I will get one to complement my quiver.
About me: 177cm, 75kg, 27.5 Mondo, advanced rider.
I want the Std Uninc to go back to camber and experience a more aggressive/agile quicker edge-to-edge and more pop ride than my Yes Greats 154 2023. I will leave the greats for freestyle focus while I will use the Std Uninc with all-mountain focus.
I like how my greats 154 turns though it is not the fastest edge to edge, I also own the Hybrid DCP 153 2022 and It is also a fun carver.
I usually will lean towards 157 for all mountain but I’m worried about the 156 Std Uninc being slow edge to edge with my feet.
My stances: GREATS 22,5in wide + – 12. Hybrid 23 in wide +15 -9.
Many thanks
Hi Javi
Thanks for your message.
As your all-mountain board I would be leaning 156 for the Standard Uninc. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 157/158, but with the Standard Uninc being wider for your boots I would size down from there and not up. But I don’t think you’ll notice it any quicker edge to edge than your Greats 154, so given that’s one of the things you’re looking for, the 153 is a possibility. You would loose some of it’s stability at speed and float in powder (though you do have the Hybrid for powder days, so no big deal on that front) – so yeah mostly would be sacrificing a little in terms of stability at speeds/high speed carves to gain better edge to edge quickness, if you went 153.
Hope this helps with your decision
Many thanks!
I went 156 and I rode it for 12 days. I had a blast carving and charging in steeper bigger mountain conditions. I rode it with Union stratas but it was lacking torsional leverage so I switched to Atlas and then I unleashed the power. However, with my weight 160-165lbs this was a beast with its torsional flex. The board feels flatter than anything else I’ve ridden. I mean the longitudinal flex is medium, you can press it, but man, the torsional flex is intimidating. That torsional flex was great for charging through irregular terrain, this thing flies over everything. But if you want to be playful, be careful. I wouldn’t take this for spins in this size 156. Another thing I noticed, in the reference stance is manageable. I tested a wider stance 57cm and the board took control over me, it was unrideable. I rode mainly centered with + -12 at 21.5 in wide, and even in 20 cm powder it floats without effort, the board has more rocker (8 cm from contact point) than you would expect so it does not feel totally locked. At the end of the season, I switched to Union Ultras and I liked it a lot, the board felt more flexible and it gained torsional flex balancing it. Now I understand why Dustin Craven rides that combo on natural selection. I will probably buy the 153 next year to gain more playfulness as I don’t ride big mountains that often.
Hi Javi
Thanks for the update and your insights. Much appreciated
Hi Nate,
I’ve got a Yes Greats 156W and love it but it lacks some pop and was pretty weak in POW. I love everything else though. Would the Standard Uninc give me that extra small bit for POW and a little more boost on Pop/Ollie’s than the Greats ? Or should I be looking for something else entirely?
If yes, I have Stratas and Genesis bindings , will either work with the slamback on this board ? In other words , can I set it way back for POW days , despite the mini disc ? ( I’ve read some conflicting things )
Thx for everything ! Your site’s amazing!
Hi AK
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, on the Strata’s you wouldn’t be able to use the Slam Backs, but you would be able to on the Genesis (assuming they’re the Re:Flex models – which they’d need to be work with the Greats anyway).
You’d get a little extra for pow for sure – particularly when you did use the slam backs. In terms of pop maybe a touch more, but not heaps, IMO. So yeah, if you’re looking for a big boost in pop, then probably some better options to look at.
Hope this helps
Got it, thanks Nate. Maybe go to the Standard instead of Uninc? I hear it’s a little better in POW (more rocker) and has everything else, minus the freeride and carving that the Uninc has?
If I did the Standard…size recommendations? The 156 has about 27 cm across the foot, which will work for my 11.5 US boot. The 159 has a 1/2 cm more so really nothing much. What do you think? Any benefit of me sizing down to 156? I’m 185 lbs, 6″0 tall, 11.5 US boot.
Hi AK
Yeah get more for pow with the regular Standard, IMO, with a little bit of a sacrifice in terms of carving and jumps. The Standard is a little easier to butter with and flex is overall just a touch softer.
In your case with 11.5 boots, I don’t think there’s a need to size down. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159/160. If you had smaller feet, then sizing down to the 156 would make sense, but with 11.5s I think the 159 is probably your best size.
Thanks again, Nate!
You’re very welcome AK. Hope you have an awesome season!
Just an update…I had the Greats 156 and loved it for carving, slashing, turning, riding switch BUT it was rough on a powder day and it lacked some pop for me, personally speaking. I decided upon the K2 Passport-I’d describe it as a freestyle-minded FreeRide board. It was better in Powder, has significantly more pop and was a bit faster (though I got it in a 159) so that could have been it. I would recommend only for strong intermediates and above as it is not as accessible/forgiving as the Greats but again, more speed, more pop, crushes through chop and chunder and better in pow.
I hope you get a chance to put the Passport on your review list soon…it’s a really interesting board. I do miss my Greats for riding switch though!!
Hi AK
Thanks for the update. Much appreciated. Hoping to get on the Passport this winter.
Hello Nate!
After reading through the review and the discussion I think that this board suits my ride style but I am on the fence between 56 and 59. My parameters: 200lbs, 6ft, US10 Salomon Dialogue.
For reference, I have 10 yo 57 Lib TRS and Burton HTH did not feel right for me. Been trying to demo the Standard Uninc in the Frisco, CO area but no luck thus far.
1. I just demoed Burton HTH and it did not feel right for me. Do you see these boards as comparable?
2. If going with the Standard Uninc, do you think the 59 would be too cumbersome a board in bumps/side hits for my specs?
Thank you!
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call size-wise, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161 for your specs but with 10s, I would size down for this board. It’s just whether or not sizing down 2cm or 5cm makes more sense, noting that whilst the 156 is still on the wide side for your boots, you’re also going narrower with the 156. Neither size would be wrong but it would depend on your riding style. If you do a lot of trees/bumps and freestyle stuff and you’re willing to sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder, then I’d be erring 156. But if you prioritize stability at speed over maneuverability and want a bit more float in powder, then I’d be leaning 159.
I didn’t find it too similar to the HTH personally.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the feedback, Nate!
You’re very welcome Daniel. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hello my friend
I am 68 kilos, my height is 166CM. and the size of my boots are 9US. I had a Yes jackpot 152cm 2016 and I really enjoyed it but this time I really would like to buy a bigger board that is 154 cm or 156cm. I like this yes standard uninc 156cm and yes basic rdm but unfortunately there is not one in 154cm-158. Also I like yes the greats 154, yes jackpot 154-156, rome agent 154 but I’m not sure which one I prefer. Therefore I would like to ask you, if you can to tell me in which order are the above boards better in carving ability. (mindle-long turns and eurocarves and hard carves) thanks in advance. I want to be the next Ryan Knapton 😊
Hi Theofanis
Thanks for your message.
IMO, the Greats is the best carver of those. The 154 is bigger than I’d typically recommend for your specs for that board, but give you want something bigger and you’ll want the extra width for eurocarving, I think that size will work. That’s what I’d go with of those options.
Hope this helps
Nate
Thanks (first and foremost) for such a great medium for snowboarding insight.
Looking to purchase this Standard Uninc board sometime before our January trip and was hoping for some advisement on sizing(as others have above).
I think I’m pretty close to Paco in sizing, but wanted to double check with you.
5’10”; 170lbs; 11.5 boot size.
Also, I just ordered some Ride C-8s the other day and I’m waiting to get them in. Do you see any issues installing those on this puppy? Not seeing where they made you top 10 list. I could return them, but the price was pretty favorable.
Thanks again!!
Hi BJ
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 156 for you but 159 is a possibility too.
I would put your “all-mountain length” at around 158. With a smaller boot size, I’d say 100% 156, but with your boot size, you don’t necessarily have to size down for this board, so that does put the 159 in range as well. If you value stability at speed over maneuverability, then I think the 159 is worth looking at. If you either want a balance between both speed and maneuverability or value maneuverability over speed, then I’d be leaning 156.
The Ride C-8 will be compatible yes – and will allow you to use the slam back inserts too with them as well. I haven’t tested the C-8 specifically, but I have tested the C-6 and they’re solid all-round bindings. Nothing overly exciting or special but no major weaknesses or anything and well made. The C-8 looks to be pretty similar to the C-6 but stiffer. Some other differences I think – like the strap looks a bit different – but I don’t think a lot of other difference, apart from the flex.
In terms of flex match, assuming they’re around an 8/10 flex as they are rated, that works with the Standard Uninc, IMO. It’s probably the stiffest I’d put on it, but still in a good range.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate!!
I May opt for the union strata instead. U see that as a better option to the c8s?
Received my “c8s” today but they were actually Union explorers for a split board. Looks like Christys messed up the order—which may work to my advantage in the long run. Lol.
Hey BJ.
Yeah, I think the Strata are a good match to the Standard Uninc. The Falcor would also be a good bet, but the Strata are well priced and I would personally go for them over the C8s.
Would the 153 be too wide for size 8 to 8.5 US boots? I weigh 145 lbs.
Hi Colton
The 153 is wide for your boots, IMO. I would put you on a 153 as your “standard all-mountain size”. So given that it’s wide for your boots, I would say it’s overall a little too big. If the Uninc version came in a 151, I would be leaning towards that instead. Unfortunately it doesn’t.
Good day! I’m 6ft, 175 lbs. Given you tested a 156 and close to the same as your physical specs, I was wondering if a 153 would be too big of a sacrifice of stability for maneuverability. I want a fun freeride mountain experience for spins/jumps, side hits and trees. I wont be spending much time in the park. Given its a mid wide I wondered if you feel like the trade off between the 56 for the 53 would be mistake?
Hi Paco
Thanks for your message.
It could work but you would sacrifice some stability at speed in order to gain that maneuverability. But the 153 wouldn’t be something you couldn’t ride comfortably at at least a moderate pace. But it’s going to depend on your boot size, so if you could let me know that, that would help a lot. E.g. the smaller the boots, the more doable the 153 is – the more you can size down. With bigger boots, it becomes less appealing to size down that much though.
Size 11 boots…I imagine the 56 might be the ticket…if there’s a better alternative to the Standard Uninc you’d recommend for that style im all ears. Never been on a Yes board before. Thanks Nate!
Hi Paco
Yeah with 11s, I would go 156 for sure. That would still be sizing down for you, IMO, so you should still gain some maneuverability. I already find the 156 maneuverable enough and I’ve got 10s. With 11s, you shouldn’t have any issues with maneuverability with this board in a 156, IMO.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Have a good one!
You’re very welcome Paco. Thanks for visiting and hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
I would really appreciate your hint on deciding between these boards:
– Yes Greats Uninc
– Yes Standard Uninc
– Yes PYL
I am riding mostly on groomers (in the Europse, Alpes mostly) but still spending some time in the park, but mostly for jumps. This year I wanna try going a little wild – going between the trees and try some off-piste. On the groomers I like going fast.
I already own Yes Basic, but I have a feeling it’s too slow for me. Which board would you recommend for me to add to my quiver?
Thanks!
Hi Max
It’s a close call.
The PYL would be the most different to the Basic – and it’s going to perform the best in terms of speed, stability at speed and floats the best in powder.
The Greats and Standard Uninc will be a little easier to ride at slower speeds – and pretty similar to each other but I’d say the Greats a little better in terms of sharper turns at slower speeds. The PYL isn’t bad in that respect though and not far off. Given it’s a stiffer board than the other 2 (although not much stiffer than the Standard Uninc) it’s really good for slow speeds for its flex, IMO. For reference, I feel the Greats at 6/10 flex, the Standard Uninc at 6.5/10 and the PYL at 7/10.
The Greats is the best for riding switch, if you think you’ll be doing that at all, but the Standard Uninc isn’t bad there either. The PYL is doable switch but not great.
The Standard Uninc is a little better in powder than the Greats, but there’s not a lot in it.
All 3 will be faster and more stable at speeds than the Basic, so you’ll definitely get some improvement there.
Both the Greats and Standard Uninc are great for jumps. The PYL isn’t amazing, but it’s still something you can take over jumps.
The Greats is the easiest to butter and best for jibs, IMO. The Greats is the most freestyle oriented.
If you’re going to be seeing a lot of powder, then the PYL could be worth giving a go. And if you like to ride quite fast on groomers, then it’s going to treat you the best for that.
The Standard Uninc is quite a good in between, if you’re looking for that do-it-all, on the slightly more aggressive side, kind of ride. And if you’re not likely to see really deep powder, then it will handle powder OK.
The Greats is the most playful of the 3. Though it’s still something you can ride quite aggressively and it’s not ultra playful or anything. Not as playful as the Basic. It’s what I would call right in the middle of the scale of playful to aggressive.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Wow, thanks for the very detailed answer! I really appreciate that. Ill go with the standard uninc, feels the best for me. Now wondering about bindigs, burton cartel x or union atlas ( i have stratas in my quiver tho, so maybe they would work fine instead?) What do you think? Thanks a ton!
Hi Max
Both the Cartel X and Atlas are a good match for the Standard Uninc, IMO, but I would be leaning Cartel X, just because it has slightly better board feel, so for when you are in the park, I think you’d prefer them then. But the Strata will work fine on the Standard Uninc too, so if you’re happy to swap over bindings then they will work well too, IMO.
How would compare the Yes Standard (23) to the Never Summer ProtoSynthesis (23)?
I understand one is a True Twin vs Directional, but is still easy to ride switch?
Which has better edge hold on Midwest ice?
Which has better pop off kickers & side hits?
Thanks so much for any guidance!
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
Can you just clarify if you want the Standard or Standard Uninc compared to the Proto Synthesis.
Could you give me the breakdown for both/either compared to the NS ProtoSynthesis?
Hi Jay
In terms of hard/icy edgehold both the Standard and Standard Uninc are going to be a little better there vs the Proto Synthesis (PS), but the PS is still decent.
In terms of pop off kickers/side-hits, the Standard Uninc is better than the Standard there – and the PS has maybe a touch more than the Standard Uninc.
The Standard/Uninc are both pretty good for riding switch, as you’ve mentioned, so that’s not a big deciding factor.
The PS and Standard Uninc are both good on a carve and both a little bit above the Standard.
The Standard is better in powder than the Uninc and PS. With the Uninc a little better than the PS, IMO.
For jumps, overall, taking everything into account, not just pop – the Standard Uninc and PS are a little better than the Standard, but the Standard still nice to jump with.
They’re all about the same in terms of speed, though if I had to choose I’d the Uninc is subtly better.
The Uninc requires just a little more muscle/effort to butter than the PS and Standard.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Could I use Burton Step On bindings on the Standard UnInc?
Thanks again!!
Hi Jay D
Yep absolutely. Burton’s Step On bindings are all Re:Flex, so they work with standard insert packs. And they work with 4 x 4 as well as 2 x 4, so you would have access to the slam back inserts as well.
Hi Nate,
How does this compare with the Yes Basic Uninc? Besides both being camber and the Basic uninc being a true twin.
Either would be my first full camber board. Is the Standard uninc a little stiffer and less forgiving?
Hi Sanjay
Thanks for your message.
There are quite a few differences:
Firstly, like you mentioned true twin vs Standard Uninc’s directional volume twin – not a massive difference between the two shapes though
Mid-bite versus underbite. This makes more of a difference in feel and in width.
The Standard Uninc is a significantly wider board. If you compare the 158 Basic Uninc with the 159 Standard Uninc, you can see not only is the waist on the 159 Standard (263mm) significantly wider vs the Basic Uninc (263mm), the width at inserts is even more different (courtesy in part of that mid-bite). And also tip and tail widths.
The Effective edge (120cm on the 158 Basic Uninc vs 118.8cm on the 159 Standard Uninc) and contact length (115cm on the Basic and 106.8cm on the Standard) also differ.
So there are quite a few differences.
Practically speaking, I would say the Standard Uninc is a little better on a carve and for jumps and a little better in powder (though neither are great for powder or anything). The Basic Uninc a little better for switch, but not much in it. Depending on your physical specs, the sizing could be quite different for both, and one might be more suitable than another in terms of sizing, so that’s another factor to consider.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the quick reply. I’m 150 lbs and have size 10.5 boots.
So either the Basic Uninc 156W or the Standard 153. I feel like 156W Basic would be too much board for me. I always like sizing down on a mid-wide/wide board.
Hi Sanjay
Yeah with 10.5s you’re on the cusp between regular and wide, so I’m not surprised you like sizing down on mid-wide/wide boards. I agree that the 153 Standard Uninc would be the better size for you. Just to confirm, if you could also let me know your height. Weight and boot size are for sure the more important factors for sizing, but I like to take everything into account.
5′ 10″
Thanks again
Hi Sanjay
Size-wise, I think the 153 Standard Uninc would work well for you. The 156W Basic Uninc is a little on the big side for you, IMO.
I’m having a question on the same decision, I’m 5’8”, 135-140, and a size 11. I would almost like to try a lighter/skinnier board but I really like pop and speed. I also want a board I can play around on and maybe take some park laps with. I think both of these boards will work for me in powder I’m just not sure which one would be better for me.
Hi Max
IMO, there isn’t a good size in the Basic Uninc RDM for you. The only one that’s wide enough for 11s is the 156W – and that’s too long for your specs, IMO.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 152 but the 152 Basic Uninc RDM is too narrow, IMO. The 153 Standard Uninc would be your best bet. It’s still on the narrower side for your boots, but if you want something narrower, then that’s your best bet as you might get away with it width-wise on that – whereas on the 152 Uninc RDM, I think you’d have boot drag issues.
Hope this helps
What bindings (with standard 4×4 disks) would you recommend for the Uninc? I would like to use the slamback inserts for deep pow days. I am also really curious how Dustin Craven rides his Uninc with Union Ultras. Seems like they would be too soft, but he is a pro after all.
Hey Mike
Thanks for your message.
I would go with something like the Salomon Highlander, Union Atlas, Burton Cartel X Reflex or Flux XF (i.e. anything from this list apart from the Falcor which has a mini disc). Something like the Union Force or Burton Cartel would also work, if you wanted to go a touch softer and cheaper, but one of those first 4 I mentioned would be what I’d put on it.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply. Between the Capita Mega Merc and Standard Uninc, which board for a Quiver of One in PNW conditions and riding switch? The lightweight Mega Merc appeals to me, but I also like having more camber and I’m curious about the mid-bite & volume directional twin shape of the Uninc. Is the Uninc much heavier than the Mega Merc? The 2023 Mega’s new factory tune that optimizes switch riding slightly makes me lean toward the Capita, but it seems like the Uninc would be better for heavy & wet PNW snow.
Hey Mike
Thanks for your message.
I would say the Standard Uninc is the better board for riding switch, but there’s not that much in it and once you were used to the boards, both can handle switch riding really well. The Mega Merc is a little better, IMO for riding powder with the Standard Uninc better for park/jumps, butters, etc. The Mega Merc more of a bomber as well. I have found that Capita’s bases tend to be a little faster and that helps in heavy/wet snow, in my experience but again there’s not much in it there.
I weighed the Standard Uninc (156) at 3140grams (6lb 15oz), so quite heavy in general, and especially when comparing to the Mega Merc (157) at 2770grams (6lbs 2oz). However, the difference is less noticeable when actually riding. You notice it more so on the lift. Some boards are light on scales AND light to ride and others are normal on scales and feel light to ride. Some are heavy on scales and feel heavy on snow etc etc. The Mega Merc is one of those boards that’s light on the scales, but doesn’t feel super light on snow. It doesn’t feel heavy on snow, but it feels pretty normal. The Standard on the other hand also feels pretty normal on snow, despite being heavy on the scales. So they feel pretty similar when riding. I’d still say the Mega Merc feels slightly on the lighter side of normal and Standard Uninc slightly on the heavier side of normal, but they’re quite close on snow in terms of weight feel. Also note that because snowboards have wood cores, not every board will weight exactly the same.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Was on the warca 153 today, great board and did surprisingly well on the steeps. Definitely noticed the weight of it on the chairlift. While it was easy to handle on snow, it def was heavy in the chairlift. Ride with malavita large. Strange cause my hybrid dcp feels lighter and so we’re previous yes boards.
Pretty keen to try this as I liked the ghost.
Cheers
Hey Tim
Nice one! I haven’t had a chance to ride the Warca yet, so good to get some insight into it. The Standard Uninc was sick. Very much like the Ghost. I wouldn’t say identical – though hard to say for sure not having them side by side on the same day or anything. I liked the Standard Uninc even more than than the Ghost but definitely very similar to Ghost. I also really liked the Ghost and was disappointed to see it discontinued, so I was pretty stoked when they brought out the Standard Uninc.
Hey there!
Thank you for the review. I was also going to get the yes standard for this upcoming season until I saw the uninc. Are there other things I should consider when deciding between the standard vs uninc? I’m based in Salt Lake City and am looking for that all-mountain one-board resort quiver. As I’m about to retire my older park-friendly board, I’m mostly looking to feel more secure at higher speeds with my friends (who all ski) + chase a few pow days here and there when work + weather permits. To me, the full camber + stiffer carbon in the fiberglass seems like this would be the better pick? The only downside that I can think of is that the uninc is touch less versatile slash friendly for powder, although I imagine the slambacks should help a little. Thank you in advance for any insight!
Hi DK
Thanks for your message.
The only real differences between the Standard Uninc and Standard are that the Uninc is a touch stiffer and has the full camber profile versus the Hybrid Camber profile on the Standard. Practically I found that to translate to the Uninc being a little poppier, a little better for carves but not quite as easy to butter. It won’t be as good for powder, because there’s not rocker there, but it also shouldn’t be a complete dud in powder, with the wider stance and being that directional volume twin shape (as opposed to true twin) – and like you mention it has those slambacks, which will certainly help on a powder day. But yeah, will be a step down in terms of powder. Overall I preferred riding the Uninc when it came to carving groomers and for jumps and sidehits. The Standard I preferred for buttering and was a little easier on jibs – and whist I didn’t test the Uninc in powder, it won’t be quite as good without that rocker in that.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Awesome review, Nate!
At the beginning of this winter (NZ) I was looking at all mountain board. I had Solomon Assassin for some time in the past and gave it away as it was a bit too wide (157w, I’m size 11 us) as I thought.
I was eyeing Yes Standard but didn’t want to get same hybrid camber profile as Assassin as it was not much precise for me as I wanted. Uninc camber is perfect with the combination of with of the board and mid bites. I’ve had couple of runs on groomers, ice, small jumps, side hits and heavy wet “pow”. Very good time all around mountain and surprisingly, when I rode it I didn’t feel weight being too heavy and when turning I didn’t feel width as a challenge.
Hi Al
Thanks for your message. Great to get your input. Yeah, it’s one of those things with the Standard Uninc – and in general YES boards with their “mid-bite” tech – that they don’t feel as wide as they should, which is great. And yeah, I also found that whilst the Standard Uninc was heavy on the scales that it didn’t ride heavy. Also keeping in mind that weights can vary from board to board even within the same model, because wood cores can vary, but there typically shouldn’t be a big difference – I think it’s just one of those boards that rides lighter than you’d expect.