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,
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
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!
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.