# Yes The Greats - not true twin



## raffertyk2 (Dec 16, 2014)

The board is an Asym twin. Which is basically a True Twin but with an Asym shape and dedicated heelside edge. The inserts are centered based off of that heelside edge. 

I'm not sure you are measuring it right

Make sure you measure to the same spot on the tip and the tail from the inserts.

The board should not have any setback. 2.5 may seem small but you are talking about a board that has a dedicated heelside edge so for a goofy rider that means their stance would be set forward this is not correct


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

If the board is centered on the sidecut it's a twin. Same thing with the Burton Flight Attendant.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

Yeah, I agreee measuring this board is tough, but I measured numerous times. I ran a straight edge from tip to tail and lined it up with every insert hole on one side. Then I measured along that line. The inserts are definitely not in the center of the board. The holes range from roughly 42.5cm - 52.5cm on one side and 45cm - 55cm on the other side.

When I mailed Yes support, they verified that there is a slight setback by design.

I was able to (almost) center the bindings by not using the same hole set for each foot, but I'm still a bit confused by this since it is sold as a 'true twin'.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ridinbend said:


> If the board is centered on the sidecut it's a twin. Same thing with the Burton Flight Attendant.


Even if the sidecut isn't centered on the board?


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

coolmite said:


> Even if the sidecut isn't centered on the board?


Sounds to me like your just measuring tip to tail. (Which you shouldn't even be doing on the board with the shape of the nose and tail anyhow.)But with an asymmetrical board it's designed to look, be offset. I would still set your bindings up centered on the insert references.




coolmite said:


> Even if the sidecut isn't centered on the board?


The board is asymmetrical, you can't look at it/measure it and expect it to look square like a true twin. BTW I own a set back directional twin.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ridinbend said:


> Sounds to me like your just measuring tip to tail. (Which you shouldn't even be doing on the board with the shape of the nose and tail anyhow.)But with an asymmetrical board it's designed to look, be offset. I would still set your bindings up centered on the insert references.
> .


I guess this is what I don't understand. You say I shouldn't measure tip to tail, but shouldn't the inserts be centered between the tip and tail? I ran a piece of string from tip to tail. That string crosses over the center of every hole on the toeside edge of the insert. The reason for this is to find the point on the tip where I want to start my measurement from and the point on the tail that I want to start my measurement from. The closest hole to the 'tail' is 43cm. The closest hole to the 'tip' is 45cm. I would expect them to be the same if it is truly a twin.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

I'm going to see if I can post some pictures to help clarify what I'm doing. (it wouldn't seem to let me put images, but here are some links)
View image: Snowboard 1
View image: Snowboard 2
View image: Snowboard 3
View image: Snoboard 4


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

speedjason said:


> True twin means the tip and tail is same size and shape. It can still have setback. I mean is it a big issue? Unless you are gonna be riding it goofy I wouldn't worry about it.


I thought true twin was 100% symmetrical. I'm not sure it is a 'big issue', but I do primarily ride goofy. I bought this board to work on switch.


----------



## MVC (Nov 5, 2015)

coolmite said:


> I'm going to see if I can post some pictures to help clarify what I'm doing. (it wouldn't seem to let me put images, but here are some links)
> View image: Snowboard 1
> View image: Snowboard 2
> View image: Snowboard 3
> View image: Snoboard 4


How can we explain this:
They did the math for you( marking reference stances) becaus mesuring an asymet twin is not that easy. It comes down too have a different sidecut on the heelside edge and toeside edge, and a different nose than a "normal" snowboard, this makes it that you cant fully measure it with a tape measure. (the shape of the nose is different from the tail so you will get other results)
The purpose of asym boards is : riding better switch !

a little online video:
Snowboard Shapes Explained


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

Bud, the sidecut is centered with the inserts. Then the camber is also centered to the sidecut and inserts. So it's twin when your bindings are centered on the inserts but the tip and tail don't have to be perfectly centered/square with the camber and sidecut. If you wanted a perfectly square true twin you shouldn't have bought an asymmetrical board.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

MVC said:


> (the shape of the nose is different from the tail so you will get other results)


Are you sure about this?? From what I've read, they should be a mirror image of each other. If that is true, I believe the method I used to measure should be correct.

Also, their customer rep told me that this board has a 'slight setback by design'


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ridinbend said:


> Bud, the sidecut is centered with the inserts. Then the camber is also centered to the sidecut and inserts. So it's twin when your bindings are centered on the inserts but the tip and tail don't have to be perfectly centered/square with the camber and sidecut. If you wanted a perfectly square true twin you shouldn't have bought an asymmetrical board.


Hmm. I thought the purpose of a twin (whether asym or not) was that riding either direction was the exact same. If the camber is not centered, isn't that a directional asym board? Isn't a setback by design going to be directional and not twin?


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

coolmite said:


> Hmm. I thought the purpose of a twin (whether asym or not) was that riding either direction was the exact same. If the camber is not centered, isn't that a directional asym board? Isn't a setback by design going to be directional and not twin?


NOT IF IT'S CENTERED ON THE SIDECUT. THE NOSE AND TAIL SHAPE WILL NOT MATTER. THE BOARD DYNAMICS DO NOT COME INTO PLAY IF THERE'S NO CONTACT WITH THE SNOW. 

Try this.....find the center between the inserts(measure from the inside insert of the left and right to get the center), then measure from that center out to the point in which the board makes contact with the ground on both sides. That should be the same distance both ways.


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

You are way over thinking this.. put your bindings on it and ride it.. If you wanted a true twin that's what you should have bought... An Asym twin can't be a true true by definition of Asym ( seriously, it can't )... See Exibit A










You don't need a true twin to work on switch.. Fucking Terje qualified for the banked slalom riding SWITCH on a directional board, set back with both feet having super positive angles... 

Time and dedication is all you need to work on riding switch...


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

txb0115 said:


> An Asym twin can't be a true true by definition of Asym ( seriously, it can't )..


So then, what is the 'twin' part of Asym Twin? It is my understanding that the asym refers to the radius of the heelside vs the toeside. They are asymetrical. The twin should refer to the tip to tail. If you folded the board in half lengthwise, it should be an exact match. Is my assumption on this part of the problem?

'Yes' is who claims this is a true twin. From their web site... "Regular or goofy; it’s still a true twin. Just flip it around." But, as a primarily goofy rider, if I center my bindings on the inserts, then I'm going to be riding with my feet 2cm closer to the front of the board.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

coolmite said:


> if I center my bindings on the inserts, then I'm going to be riding with my feet 2cm closer to the front of the board.


Wrong. You will be centered on the contact the board has with the snow. Take the nose and tail out of the equation completely.


----------



## bksdds (Jul 2, 2015)

^I feel like this just happened.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

MVC said:


> The purpose of asym boards is : riding better switch !
> 
> a little online video:
> Snowboard Shapes Explained


An asym is true twin. It balances out heelside and toeside turns. If it helped you ride better switch wouldn't either Regular or Goofy footed riders have an advantage over the other? I do not know where the switch marketing came from on Asym. But it's bullshit. Asym helps you're heelside turns, it does no more for switch riding than a symmetrical twin.


OP: Tip your board up on edge on a flat surface and measure from your last insert to the contact point. That will ensure you are not being mislead by the tip shape or a vaguely inaccurate tip shape cut. I'm not sure what the guy was talking about in your email response, the Greats should be a perfect twin tip and tail. If it wasn't they'd have to make a regular and goofy model like Gnu does with the Zoid.


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

coolmite said:


> So then, what is the 'twin' part of Asym Twin? It is my understanding that the asym refers to the radius of the heelside vs the toeside. They are asymetrical. The twin should refer to the tip to tail. If you folded the board in half lengthwise, it should be an exact match. Is my assumption on this part of the problem?
> 
> 'Yes' is who claims this is a true twin. From their web site... "Regular or goofy; it’s still a true twin. Just flip it around." But, as a primarily goofy rider, if I center my bindings on the inserts, then I'm going to be riding with my feet 2cm closer to the front of the board.


YES could claim the board was made by the hands of Baby Jesus himself and that doesn't make it true... Asymmetric shapes were long established in this world before snowboards came around and a Asymmetric shape can't be a true twin.. 

It's.Just.Not.Possible.




ridinbend said:


> Wrong. You will be centered on the contact the board has with the snow. Take the nose and tail out of the equation completely.


^^^^ Correct! This guy gets it!


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

Nivek said:


> I do not know where the switch marketing came from on Asym. But it's bullshit. Asym helps you're heelside turns, it does no more for switch riding than a symmetrical twin.


Correct! Asym is for heelside turns!


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/150753-true-twin-doesnt-measure-true-twin.html


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

txb0115 said:


> You are way over thinking this.. put your bindings on it and ride it.. If you wanted a true twin that's what you should have bought... An Asym twin can't be a true true by definition of Asym ( seriously, it can't )...


When snowboards are the topic, seriously, yes it can. Your axis is what determines whether or not something is symmetrical and if you make the axis on an asym twin the waist, they demonstrate mirror symmetry. When you talk about a true twin snowboard what is being said is the nose and tail have the same flex, same camber, and same shape. That if you cut the board across the waist and remove the graphic the nose would be indistinguishable from the tail. Do that to a Greats, Helix, Awesymmetric, ET Asym... Bet you can't tell which one was the nose or tail. The aim of a true twin, identical ride feel regular and switch, is unhindered by having an Asym twin.

The context of terminology matters.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ridinbend said:


> Wrong. You will be centered on the contact the board has with the snow. Take the nose and tail out of the equation completely.


OK, this is starting to make some sense. I get that I will be riding centered on where the board makes contact to with the snow. Are you saying that it doesn't matter at all that my feet will be closer to the end of the board. If it doesn't matter, what is the purpose? Why not have it centered on the board itself? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that - especially since I've generally had my feet place more toward the back of my board up until now.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

coolmite said:


> I thought true twin was 100% symmetrical. I'm not sure it is a 'big issue', but I do primarily ride goofy. I bought this board to work on switch.


Why would asymmetrical to be any beneficial to ride switch?:eyetwitch2:
It helps your heel side turns but that's it.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

speedjason said:


> Why would asymmetrical to be any beneficial to ride switch?:eyetwitch2:
> It helps your heel side turns but that's it.


Best feeling hard heel side carve was on a zoid last year.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

My neurons..... they're dying


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

speedjason said:


> Why would asymmetrical to be any beneficial to ride switch?:eyetwitch2:
> It helps your heel side turns but that's it.


It's not the 'asymmetrical' that helps you ride switch, it is the 'twin'. It doesn't matter whether your front foot is you left or right because everything to the right and left of both feet should be the same.


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

Nivek said:


> The aim of a true twin, identical ride feel regular and switch, is unhindered by having an Asym twin.
> 
> The context of terminology matters.



You're right the context of terminology does matter.. 

He hasn't once talked about how it rides or will ride or what it feels like.. Soooo, that's not the context of this thread...

He's talking about mounting up his bindings and measuring from tip to tail, and in that context it's not a true twin..


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

coolmite said:


> It's not the 'asymmetrical' that helps you ride switch, it is the 'twin'. It doesn't matter whether your front foot is you left or right because everything to the right and left of both feet should be the same.


What helps you ride switch is practice...


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

txb0115 said:


> What helps you ride switch is practice...


Fair enough. But, would you say it is easier or harder to ride switch on a twin vs a directional board.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

So, after some more measurement, it seems like the camber is actually centered on the board, but the inserts aren't centered on the camber. I haven't measured the sidecuts on the heelside yet to see how they sit in relation.

Edit: After measuring the heelside radius, it appears that it is centered on the board as well. It just seems to be the binding inserts that aren't centered on the board.


----------



## txb0115 (Sep 20, 2015)

coolmite said:


> Fair enough. But, would you say it is easier or harder to ride switch on a twin vs a directional board.


For me it makes no difference, once I'm familiar with the board....


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

coolmite said:


> Fair enough. But, would you say it is easier or harder to ride switch on a twin vs a directional board.


I used to own a Freeride board - set back 25mm, and tapered.
Riding it switch was definitely not as easy as riding either a true twin or a directional twin.

If you are just starting to ride switch, a true twin will be easiest on which to learn. A directional twin probably wouldn't have any noticeable difference riding switch to someone learning switch. Personally, I prefer to keep any setback on a directional twin to 20mm or less if I plan to ride it switch.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

coolmite said:


> fair enough. But, would you say it is easier or harder to ride switch on a twin vs a directional board.


the greats is not directional!! 
It's a twin!! 


The yes greats is a twin.


----------



## Bertieman (Jan 19, 2014)

OP- I get exactly what you are saying. I have a lib tech hot knife that is a 'true twin' but the inserts are actually set back a cm or two. It's because they can't always make their boards 100% accurate. That is literally all there is to say.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

Board is a true twin aside from the sidecut, a small trip to the website will give you the specs.


----------



## taco tuesday (Jul 26, 2014)

Some of y'all are crazy. The OP's thoughts are not so far off or hard to understand but you guys are about to have a stroke because he isn't using the terminology in the way you like. 

Thank you Nivel for bringing some sanity to the discussion. Basically all the OP is saying is that his board is marketed as though the left foot side and right foot side are mirror images of eachother. We all understand the the heel edge and toe edge are asym(that has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about. The board, as per it's marketing should have a center line between the left foot side and right foot side. Everything should be centered on that line from end to end(not heel to toe obviously) camber, side cut, inserts should have equal dimensions. 

He is not asking about any board that may have a twin shape where it contacts the snow but a different nose or tail surface area like a flight attendant or zygote or anything else for that matter. Just a Yes Greats.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ItchEtrigR said:


> Board is a true twin aside from the sidecut, a small trip to the website will give you the specs.


That is kinda my point of this thread. According to the website, the board is a true twin aside from the sidecut. However, my board isn't. (or at least how I define twin)

I've been measuring this all day. I'm an engineer and overly anal. The bottom line is I have 3 different center points.

As it turns out, the heelside sidecut radius is centered on the board. The exact center of the board at its longest point and the center of the sidecut are the same. To me, that is the true center. 

I've been measuring all day and I'm a little crazy right now, but...
1) The center of the inserts is shifted to the *right* by 1.0cm of 'true center'. 
2) The center of the camber is shifted .25cm *left* of the true center.
3) The center of the inserts is shifted 1.25cm to the right of the camber center.

I honestly don't know what to make of this except the numbers aren't what I expected. I've done the measurements about 10 times and I'm pretty sure they are very close to accurate.

Is this kind of variation just part of the manufacturing process?

Edit: I get that I'm not likely to notice the difference on the snow. In general, I just tend to be overly attentive to symmetry - not just with snowboards. Heaven forbid a picture in my house be a little crooked.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

If you measuring right and the numbers are wrong, manufacturing error, contact customer support I'm sure they will get you sorted. There should be no setback, maybe a manufacturing tolerance of 2mm or so.

Call them back if they come again with the designed setback thing ask to speak to someone who knows what they are talking about.


----------



## Mystery2many (Aug 14, 2013)

ItchEtrigR said:


> If you measuring right and the numbers are wrong, manufacturing error, contact customer support I'm sure they will get you sorted. There should be no setback, maybe a manufacturing tolerance of 2mm or so.
> 
> Call them back if they come again with the designed setback thing ask to speak to someone who knows what they are talking about.


This. Go to the source with your ducks in a row and find out the real deal.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2013)

coolmite said:


> I've been measuring all day and I'm a little crazy right now, but...
> 1) The center of the inserts is shifted to the *right* by 1.0cm of 'true center'. 2) The center of the camber is shifted .25cm *left* of the true center.
> 3) The center of the inserts is shifted 1.25cm to the right of the camber center.


This is confusing, as what is "right" and "left" for the sake of clarity refer to the measurements on your asym board when talking to YES (and us), it will help us and them in the long run. Kinda like this:

Regular (left foot forward) set up:
****** heel 
TAIL / ::: ::: \ TIP
........... toe

for example: do you mean in 1) the inserts are shifted to the tip, or to an edge? Edge would mean an obvious manufacturers defect which is a problem, the other scenario has been explained in this thread already.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

Banjo said:


> This is confusing, as what is "right" and "left" for the sake of clarity refer to the measurements on your asym board when talking to YES (and us), it will help us and them in the long run. Kinda like this:
> 
> Regular (left foot forward) set up:
> ****** heel
> ...


I was using right and left because this board shouldn't really have a tip or tail - if you are looking down at it, my measurements are to the left and right of center. But since I ride goofy, here it is...
*********toe*********
** Tail \::: :::/Tip **
*********heel********

The center of the sidecut radius is the same as the center of the board as measured from the longest point of both 'tip' and 'tail'. I'm using this as a 'true center'.
1) The center of the inserts is shifted to the *right* by 1.0cm of 'true center'. 
2) The center of the camber is shifted .25cm *left* of the true center.
3) The center of the inserts is shifted 1.25cm to the right of the camber center.

Make sense?


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

Make a simple measurement from the farthest point of the tip to the middle of the closest insert on both sides. 

Forget about sidecut for the moment it's not important for the measurement you need to make


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

I knew instantly what you meant by left and right. I also think that there's a chance your board is fucked. What worries most is the bull crap that the [email protected] tried to feed you. Almost like... so we've a bunch of wonky boards... shit... lets hope nobody notices and if they do we'll tell them they're supposed to be like that. I hope I'm wrong as I'm a Yes fan.


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

Dudes getting all bunchpantied because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! But I make you right that this particular board's two halves, however you want to call it; left, right, regular tip, goofy tail, whatever, should be a mirror image from the center point between the two ends, the side cut and the profile.


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

There you go go.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

coolmite said:


> Banjo said:
> 
> 
> > This is confusing, as what is "right" and "left" for the sake of clarity refer to the measurements on your asym board when talking to YES (and us), it will help us and them in the long run. Kinda like this:
> ...



This is very well laid out. Send that to Yes.


----------



## Matty_B_Bop (Jan 27, 2015)

This makes me want to measure my 2015 Yes Greats. I just assumed everything was equal being a true twin, so I never really paid close attention.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

Matty_B_Bop said:


> This makes me want to measure my 2015 Yes Greats. I just assumed everything was equal being a true twin, so I never really paid close attention.


Heh, I debated for a long time about getting a great deal on the 2015 or buying a new 2016. The only reason I went for the '16 is it is supposed to be a little less stiff. 

Now I'm wondering if I made the right call. :dry:


----------



## Matty_B_Bop (Jan 27, 2015)

coolmite said:


> Heh, I debated for a long time about getting a great deal on the 2015 or buying a new 2016. The only reason I went for the '16 is it is supposed to be a little less stiff.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if I made the right call. :dry:


measuring now. I'll report back. 

i'm going to measure the first set of holes closest to the tip, and then the first set of holes closest to the tail. They should be equal distance from, correct?

That's what the debate is? Just making sure I'm comprehending correctly.


----------



## Matty_B_Bop (Jan 27, 2015)

Matty_B_Bop said:


> measuring now. I'll report back.
> 
> i'm going to measure the first set of holes closest to the tip, and then the first set of holes closest to the tail. They should be equal distance from, correct?
> 
> That's what the debate is? Just making sure I'm comprehending correctly.



bindings off, and measured. 

2015 158 Yes Greats:

from the tip to middle of the hole closest to the tip is ~44.5cm or ~17.5in

from the tail to the middle of the hole closest to the tail is ~44.5cm or ~17.5in

looks to be about exact to me. The challenge is measuring the exact part of the ends given the tip and tail shape. 


However, I think something is messed up with your board. Definitely get it worked out with Yes.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

Matty_B_Bop said:


> bindings off, and measured.
> 
> 2015 158 Yes Greats:
> 
> ...


Baby Jesus himself must have pressed that one


----------



## Matty_B_Bop (Jan 27, 2015)

ItchEtrigR said:


> Baby Jesus himself must have pressed that one



Let's hope it's the work of the Satanic Surfers.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

ItchEtrigR said:


> Baby Jesus himself must have pressed that one


Praise da lord!! :bowdown:


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

Nivek said:


> An asym is true twin. It balances out heelside and toeside turns. If it helped you ride better switch wouldn't either Regular or Goofy footed riders have an advantage over the other? I do not know where the switch marketing came from on Asym. But it's bullshit. Asym helps you're heelside turns, it does no more for switch riding than a symmetrical twin.
> 
> 
> OP: Tip your board up on edge on a flat surface and measure from your last insert to the contact point. That will ensure you are not being mislead by the tip shape or a vaguely inaccurate tip shape cut. I'm not sure what the guy was talking about in your email response, the Greats should be a perfect twin tip and tail. If it wasn't they'd have to make a regular and goofy model like Gnu does with the Zoid.


All of this!!!!! ^^^^^


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

coolmite said:


> Heh, I debated for a long time about getting a great deal on the 2015 or buying a new 2016. The only reason I went for the '16 is it is supposed to be a little less stiff.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if I made the right call. :dry:


You made the right call, just that you got a board that was made wrong!!!!! Shit happens with everythin you buy!!!!!

What's not right is the dude that replied to your email!!!!! 

I'd fire it up them good and proper for talkin shit!!!!! Someone at YES will sort it, then deal with Dopey!!!!!


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

Pretty sure mines is the same.

I was putting my bindings on today had them lined up in the same spot both feet i then measured from the centre of each binding to the tip and the tail of the board and it was low and behold 2cm out (approx)

What i did was just centered the bindings on the binding disks.

Im interested to hear if there is a fault with these though.


----------



## highme (Dec 2, 2012)

If you just got it recently, unless you purchased it directly from Yes. don't deal with them. Just return it to where you bought it from & get another. Explain to them your concerns, but let them deal with Yes., that's what retailers do.


If you bought it online, easy returns is another reason to support your local core shops.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm definitely wearing all black today. Mourn my neurons.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

speedjason said:


> Why would asymmetrical to be any beneficial to ride switch?:eyetwitch2:
> It helps your heel side turns but that's it.





Nivek said:


> An asym is true twin. *It balances out heelside and toeside turns.* If it helped you ride better switch wouldn't either Regular or Goofy footed riders have an advantage over the other? I do not know where the switch marketing came from on Asym. But it's bullshit. *Asym helps you're heelside turns, it does no more for switch riding than a symmetrical twin.*


That was my understanding of the "Asym" shape as well,..! Better, easier, more locked in heelside carves!

However,… wouldn't that alone translate to an easier transition when learning to ride switch? For most ppl starting to learn switch, this feels awkward & un-natural enough. An easier feel to a heel side turn Reg or switch would seem to me to be a benefit to picking it up,.. No? 





Snow Hound said:


> View attachment 78194
> There you go go.


Interesting definition,.. Just because my feet hurt and I feel like throwing gasoline on this particular fire,.. :laugh: 

*Here's a link* to a similarly beat to death discussion on a similarly confusing and hotly debated *"True Twin"* thread!!!! (Donutz had to close that one down cuz _somebody,.. _{Not sayin' who!!! :embarrased1: } got WAY too hot under the collar about definitions & semantics!!! :embarrased1:  :laugh:


-edit-

BTW,.. Unlike a True twin with an IDENTICAL shape, frnt to back side to side, up & down? An Asym board DOES have a heelside & toeside edge!! You cannot just mount your bindings on it reversed. The only difference is if you run different angles on your lead/back foot? You would obviously need to change which foot gets which angle depending on if you are Reg. or goofy! But the heelside edge of the board needs to ALWAYS be the heelside edge! 

With a truly Symmetrical, Identical True twin,..? That don't matter!


----------



## Rogue (Nov 29, 2014)

I'm at work reading this and my brain is about to explode. I think Tolstoy would be lighter reading at this point tonight lol


----------



## basser (Sep 18, 2015)

Rogue said:


> I'm at work reading this and my brain is about to explode. I think Tolstoy would be lighter reading at this point tonight lol


ahaha, so true.


----------



## Matty_B_Bop (Jan 27, 2015)

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/191770-annoyed-disgruntled-back-square-1-a.html


----------



## ek9max (Apr 8, 2013)

I just measured my 2016 yes greats. From bindings to the end of the board was exactly even both sides.....

Good enough for me.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

ek9max said:


> I just measured my 2016 yes greats. From bindings to the end of the board was exactly even both sides.....
> 
> Good enough for me.


Nice! What size? I've been trying to figure out if this impacted all '56 boards or just some of them. I've had 2 and both of mine had the insert packs shifted to the right.


----------



## ek9max (Apr 8, 2013)

coolmite said:


> Nice! What size? I've been trying to figure out if this impacted all '56 boards or just some of them. I've had 2 and both of mine had the insert packs shifted to the right.


154cm for mine.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

Yep, that makes sense. 152 and 154 are fine. The problem is just on 56 and 58.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

Just got a 156 from Amazon/back country and it is a defect. Headed out to go check on a 158.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

158 is likely gonna have the same problem. What is your stance width? 

Using the available inserts, you can ride centered at 20.6", 22.2", and 23.7".
If your ride regular, you can have a 1.075cm setback at 19.8", 21.4", 22.9", and 24.5"
If you ride goofy, you can have a .925cm setback at 21.4" and 22.9"


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

I would be aiming for the 23.5 inch stance. If I can get past the part of buying a board for 500 plus dollars that's defective, I was also thinking that since I'm using Union bindings I can slide the mounting disks to get center. Curious what configuration you would use to get the 23.7 inch stance with. Do you skip an insert on the back foot? Or?


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

I struggled for over a week with the fact that it is a defective board that cost a lot of money. In the end, I decided I think I can live with it since I can get it set to pretty much how I like it. I'm taking it out for the first time tomorrow. So, I guess we'll see how it goes.

To get 23.7", looking down at the board, with the heelside on the bottom, it would be like below. The 'x' represents where the insert is used, the 'o' is an unused insert

___________________________
.......... xoxooo ooxoxo
.......... xoxooo ooxoxo
___________________________
heelside


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

More measuring and discussion is required.

No snowboarding.


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

snowklinger said:


> More measuring and discussion is required.
> 
> No snowboarding.


Imperial or Metric?????


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

Unsubscribing, kill this thread


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

coolmite said:


> I struggled for over a week with the fact that it is a defective board that cost a lot of money. In the end, I decided I think I can live with it since I can get it set to pretty much how I like it. I'm taking it out for the first time tomorrow. So, I guess we'll see how it goes.
> 
> To get 23.7", looking down at the board, with the heelside on the bottom, it would be like below. The 'x' represents where the insert is used, the 'o' is an unused insert
> 
> ...


Thanks - is that for the 158? 

How do you know ( I couldn't see any indicators) which inserts are the reference points from the factory?


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

Ehhhh.... so the entire insert pack is setback 2 cm? 

Honestly ... this board is totally F'd up. I don't see how, even with correct placement of the inserts, that YES comes up with a max stance of 25.4. But whatever......

Another thing .... if you look at the graphic (it's a true twin) it is obviously centered and really shows how the inserts are off. 

If one wanted, I think you could plug the back two inserts and add to inserts up front. Lol.... 

I can't believe I bought this POS.


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> Ehhhh.... so the entire insert pack is setback 2 cm?
> 
> Honestly ... this board is totally F'd up. I don't see how, even with correct placement of the inserts, that YES comes up with a max stance of 25.4. But whatever......
> 
> ...



The Camber doesn't peak in the centre it is off by the same amount that the inserts are and i reckon the board is short by the same amount as well...

I have no fancy measuring devices this is simply by me messing around with a measuring tape so it's not an exact science.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

What do you mean when you say the board is short? A 158 is not 158cm?

If the camber peak is off the same amount as the inserts then you have a setback board. Nothing more. Simple as that, done. 

In that case, I'm taking it back.

How can you be sure?


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> What do you mean when you say the board is short? A 158 is not 158cm?
> 
> If the camber peak is off the same amount as the inserts then you have a setback board. Nothing more. Simple as that, done.
> 
> ...



I cant be sure i was using a measuring tape and my naked eye i have no fancy equipment. 

I have a 156 and to me it measures 153.5 from tip to tail. 

It sits roughly about the same if you set them on the floor with my 154 Lib but with the fancy cut of The Greats its hard to tell.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

ricksen24 said:


> I cant be sure i was using a measuring tape and my naked eye i have no fancy equipment.
> 
> I have a 156 and to me it measures 153.5 from tip to tail.
> 
> It sits roughly about the same if you set them on the floor with my 154 Lib but with the fancy cut of The Greats its hard to tell.


I just used a sewing tape measure (nice and limp) and my 158 measures 61.75" , or 156.845 CM. 

So, ya, short. Normal....????? I've never measured a board and this is probably less than 10 I've ever owned. So..... Normal or not, it is in fact shorter than 158 CM. 

I also marked the half way mark on the using a piece of tape and a square. I took a set of calipers and measured center, then 10" out, and 5" out on both sides of the center line. Floor to top of board. 

Of course the numbers weren't exact, we're talking in the low .5xx to high .4xx numbers. However, nothing stood out as being significantly out of whack. 

Anyways.... frankly.... this is bullshit. That said, I can't wait to go ride it. :surprise: I've got emails into YES, and I won't stop until I get a response. :blahblah:

It's very easy to measure that the inserts are 2 cm off. Coolmite lists the correct method for getting the board setup as a true twin using the inserts.

You're really F'd if you want a stance width wider than 23.50"!


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> I just used a sewing tape measure (nice and limp) and my 158 measures 61.75" , or 156.845 CM.
> 
> So, ya, short. Normal....????? I've never measured a board and this is probably less than 10 I've ever owned. So..... Normal or not, it is in fact shorter than 158 CM.
> 
> ...


Im putting the 156 back and getting a 158.

Done at least the inserts are in the correct place. 

YES are a joke i waited a month for an email which says we are not recalling the board. So they have sold a bunch of boards to people that are faulty but they are not telling them...? 

Seen the mess VW are in YES?!


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> Thanks - is that for the 158?
> 
> How do you know ( I couldn't see any indicators) which inserts are the reference points from the factory?


Sorry, that is for the 156. I know by a lot of measurements and having conversations with YES.



pdxrealtor said:


> Ehhhh.... so the entire insert pack is setback 2 cm?
> 
> Honestly ... this board is totally F'd up. I don't see how, even with correct placement of the inserts, that YES comes up with a max stance of 25.4. But whatever......


The left side pack is actually off by 21.5mm on the 156. Their reference stance on max width listed on their marketing material are based on where the pack is supposed to be.



ricksen24 said:


> The Camber doesn't peak in the centre it is off by the same amount that the inserts are and i reckon the board is short by the same amount as well...
> 
> I have no fancy measuring devices this is simply by me messing around with a measuring tape so it's not an exact science.


I don't believe the board is actually short. They are measured before they are pressed. Using a square for the longest points, mine measures around 154.5cm - I think that is a reasonable amount to account to the curves.

Additionally my sidecuts are centered on the board.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

coolmite said:


> *Sorry, that is for the 156. I know by a lot of measurements and having conversations with YES.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem (appreciate all your persistence and information!) - it's the same difference. I end up at exactly 23.50" where you were saying 23.7". 

In the end you take the bottom two inserts off the right side, and imagine there are two inserts above the left most inserts on the left side, and you'll understand how to set your board up properly. 

You'll also understand the that max stance width is considerably shorter, because you really you're out ~ 4 cm of adjustment, or just over 1.5". 

Still pretty disappointing. My memory sucks. If I have this board in five years and it sat for three there's no way in hell I'll remember all this crap. 

While we're at it - anyone know what their 'sintered true' base is? I see no numbers on any of their boards. Like 7000, or 9900..... I'm starting to get a bad impression here....


----------



## grandpalacko (Oct 10, 2013)

Does anyone know if 158 size is also affected? And if yes, does it mean all of the 158s have the setback?

I'm thinking of upgrading from 14/15 Jackpot 156 to 15/16 The Greats 158. It's basically sold out everywhere in the EU, but I found one in a french online store. Return would cost too much (I live in Austria), so I'd like to buy a board without any factory defect.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

All of the 156 and 158s are defects. YES customer service re: the matter is absolute crap.

The Jones Mt is such a livelier, all around better board compared to the Greats. If you can get or try one I would strongly suggest you go that route.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

pdxrealtor said:


> All of the 156 and 158s are defects. YES customer service re: the matter is absolute crap.
> 
> The Jones Mt is such a livelier, all around better board compared to the Greats. If you can get or try one I would strongly suggest you go that route.


Butthurt ^

Jones M Twin is a differnt board from the Greats. 

More directly comparable would be the Salomon Assassin or Endeavor Live or Capita Defenders of Awesome. Maybe Ride Machete GT too.


----------



## grandpalacko (Oct 10, 2013)

pdxrealtor said:


> All of the 156 and 158s are defects. YES customer service re: the matter is absolute crap.
> 
> The Jones Mt is such a livelier, all around better board compared to the Greats. If you can get or try one I would strongly suggest you go that route.


That's sad. I wanted that board so badly. :frown:

I agree with F1EA, DOA and Assassin would be a better "replacement". Now I just have to decide which one. :grin:


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

F1EA said:


> Butthurt ^
> 
> Jones M Twin is a differnt board from the Greats.
> 
> More directly comparable would be the Salomon Assassin or Endeavor Live or Capita Defenders of Awesome. Maybe Ride Machete GT too.


lol... I wish 1000 defective boards on you. :x lol

Seriously.... The Jones is a marketed exactly as the The Greats. It's meant to be just as comparable as the the other boards you listed and float better in powder due to the elongated nose. 

YES is selling defective boards and not telling anyone. If you're not paying attention, or don't have the internet, you'll be riding The Greats board set back. 

The dealers I spoke with aren't too happy with YES about the matter either. 

The Jones is the far better ride IMO..... I'm glad the YES experience turned out the way it did because I ended up with a much better board in the end.


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> lol... I wish 1000 defective boards on you. :x lol
> 
> Seriously.... The Jones is a marketed exactly as the The Greats. It's meant to be just as comparable as the the other boards you listed and float better in powder due to the elongated nose.
> 
> ...


Not telling their customers is so so poor imo.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

ricksen24 said:


> Not telling their customers is so so poor imo.


Ya.... they could have come out looking so much better if they were up front about it all.

RE: the entire situation...the entire CS is what left the most sour taste in my mouth. Not the fact that the board is a defect.

Ricksen - didn't you order a MT? Or Ultra MT as a replacement?


----------



## danzon (Dec 6, 2015)

well im happy, my shop told me i can ride this board until end of season, and then they will come and pick it up and replace it for a greats 2017 when it comes out.


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> Ya.... they could have come out looking so much better if they were up front about it all.
> 
> RE: the entire situation...the entire CS is what left the most sour taste in my mouth. Not the fact that the board is a defect.
> 
> Ricksen - didn't you order a MT? Or Ultra MT as a replacement?


I did mate yes but i put it back i didn't fancy it when i saw the board in the flesh. Still not got a board. 

Right now I'm on the T Rice Pro HP a few guys i have spoken with says its super easy to ride.

With the kids now i only get like 10 days a year in so thats whats leaning me towards the easiness (rocker)


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

I definitely don't think YES handled this well at all. That said, if you really want the board, you can ride it with no setback. You just have to use different inserts than advertised. If you ride regular, I think you have 4 available stance widths that are centered. If you ride goofy, you have two available. The problem is really only in where they drilled the inserts, the sidecuts are still centered on the board.

I've had mine out 4 days now and it has been fun. A lot different than my last full camber directional board. Edge to edge is crazy fast and is really fun. I had some trouble with presses, but that is more on me than anything.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

pdxrealtor said:


> lol... I wish 1000 defective boards on you. :x lol
> 
> Seriously.... The Jones is a marketed exactly as the The Greats. It's meant to be just as comparable as the the other boards you listed and float better in powder due to the elongated nose.
> 
> ...


Dude... you're totally hissy-fitting.



coolmite said:


> I definitely don't think YES handled this well at all. That said, if you really want the board, you can ride it with no setback. You just have to use different inserts than advertised. If you ride regular, I think you have 4 available stance widths that are centered. If you ride goofy, you have two available. The problem is really only in where they drilled the inserts, the sidecuts are still centered on the board.
> 
> I've had mine out 4 days now and it has been fun. A lot different than my last full camber directional board. Edge to edge is crazy fast and is really fun. I had some trouble with presses, but that is more on me than anything.


^ this guy has struck the point.

Ride. Have fun.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

F1EA said:


> Dude... you're totally hissy-fitting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't care for the board, or the customer service. If I thought the board was all that great I would have kept it. 

The T-rice and the Jones is far superior IMO. 

I'm here complaining about legitimate complaints. You're here making smart ass remarks and pointing out the fact others are complaining. Whatever...... :blahblah:


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

For anyone who comes stumbling along looking for the correct way to setup their defect....


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> I didn't care for the board


Just curious what you didn't like about it.


----------



## ekb18c (Mar 11, 2013)

Wondering if shops will be discounting the 2016 boards (156, 158) because if that's the case, i'll def be picking up another Greats board. Then again, next years graphics is pretty sweet as well. hmmmmm


----------



## GDimac (Nov 19, 2015)

Next year has the UnInc graphic. My shop owner buddy told me its gonna increase in price as well. Prob adding some new tech to it, plus increase in demand perhaps?

Aside from the insert issue, this yrs stick was well received across the board of those who officially reviewed it. And as I've mentioned a few times on a few threads, this was an amazing ride. May add it to the quiver, incredible imo.

Saw the msg from YES that was posted earlier, happy to see them try to work out that insert issue, one way or another.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

pdxrealtor said:


> I didn't care for the board, or the customer service. If I thought the board was all that great I would have kept it.
> 
> The T-rice and the Jones is far superior IMO.
> 
> I'm here complaining about legitimate complaints. You're here making smart ass remarks and pointing out the fact others are complaining. Whatever...... :blahblah:


If you had liked the board, you would have kept it.

Are you saying..... you would have overlooked the 2cm insert setback because it's actually not a big deal?

Thought so.

You're hissy-fitting.

Anyone have Union, Rome or Ride bindings? cause you can move the bindings tip/tail on those. All you need is 1cm each binding... which is WELL within the range for their mini discs.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

coolmite said:


> Just curious what you didn't like about it.


I thought it was small for its size, and overall was kind of just 'meh'. It also didn't do well in the wet heavy powder we get here. It was a chore to ride in that stuff to say the least. I'm between 180 and 185 lbs and rode the 158. 

It was good edge to edge to edge but I have no issues working the t-rice wide either. It snapped out of the carves nicely, but so does the Jones. 

The presses were challenging (I"m not the best anyways), I'd say in line with the t-rice or bit harder. With the Jones I can press it and spin it off a press no issue. Thinking it may have some softer tip/tail tech. 

To sum it up when I got on the YES The Greats board I didn't think wow this is a great ride. 

When I got on the Jones Mountain Twin, and for that matter the T-Rice, I was wowed and grinning ear to ear. 

I expected something much better after reading all the great personal and professional reviews. The board just didn't do it for me.

Someone in this thread or another similar thread mentioned the Jones MT being lively. It is, very lively. I felt that was one of the best attributes of the Jones. It's like the board has springs in it. Add to that the flex and it's just a blast to ride. 

I picked up a used YES PYL recently and it's a fine ride too, just nothing special in my opinion. I hope to move back to my larger T-Rice board for the super deep days, and get rid of the PYL too.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

ekb18c said:


> Wondering if shops will be discounting the 2016 boards (156, 158) because if that's the case, i'll def be picking up another Greats board. Then again, next years graphics is pretty sweet as well. hmmmmm


Based on my email exchange with YES, and my local shop, I don't think anyone will see any discounts because of the insert issue. 

My shop was blind sided by the entire thing until I called them because YES was taking forever to do so themselves. 

They (YES) certainly could use a lesson in customer service.


----------



## ricksen24 (Sep 9, 2015)

pdxrealtor said:


> Based on my email exchange with YES, and my local shop, I don't think anyone will see any discounts because of the insert issue.
> 
> My shop was blind sided by the entire thing until I called them because YES was taking forever to do so themselves.
> 
> They (YES) certainly could use a lesson in customer service.


I bet they will have their compensation claim into the factory by now as well. 

Disgraceful outfit.


----------



## JDA (Feb 10, 2016)

I just picked up a 16 greats in 156 at a discounted price, I knew about the defect but was not too concerned.

Anyway from my measurements I think the camber is also 20mm set back.


----------



## pdxrealtor (Jan 23, 2012)

I guarantee you the camber is not setback.


----------



## JDA (Feb 10, 2016)

its difficult to measure, that's for sure.


----------



## coolmite (Oct 29, 2015)

JDA said:


> I just picked up a 16 greats in 156 at a discounted price, I knew about the defect but was not too concerned.
> 
> Anyway from my measurements I think the camber is also 20mm set back.


I've spent way too many hours measuring my board. I also believe my camber is not centered. Mine *appears* to be about a 5mm set forward. However, I don't think that has anything to do with YES though. That amount would easily fall within an expected variance do to moisture in the board, humidity while cooling, ambient temperature, etc.


----------



## foobaz (Jan 28, 2015)

It's pretty sad about Yes' customer service. Their boards sound really good, but the Greats fiasco really put me off them :/


----------

