# 2019 YES. Standard vs the Greats



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Hm, quite a few misconceptions there:



Sinddk said:


> the standard and the greats have gotten new cores, which means they are 10% lighter.


No, it means the core is (supposedly) 10% lighter. The difference for the whole board is much less and will not be noticeable at all.



Sinddk said:


> Both are also listed at 7/10 stiffness on Yes scale, i know this was weird in the past models where the greats and standard also shared the stiffness, but the greats was softer.


Not weird at all. a) Flex is subjective and b) there are many different potential flex 'measurements'.



Sinddk said:


> BUT! lets say the greats actually got stiffer since it shares the same core as the standard (if you are to believe the catalog).


Many things other than the core determine stiffness (lay-up/fiberglass/resin, core shaping, carbon, etc - potentially even camber profile.



Sinddk said:


> That would mean the greats become a better all mountain board and a bit less of a park board? Am I correct in this assumption?


Not really. Greats has always been more of an all-mountain board than a park deck.



Sinddk said:


> Also it pretty much comes down to directional twin vs asym twin, and Id really like to know if picking an asym twin as your 1 board quiver killer is a good idea? Or should I go with the directional twin?


Same considerations apply for an asym twin as for any other true twin. Ie most people are probably better off with something more directional for a one board quiver. But for some a true twin makes sense. Horses, courses...



Sinddk said:


> Asym twin would be more nimble in trees or?


No, no reason that it should be.



Sinddk said:


> What i love to do the most when snowboarding is riding:
> 
> 1. Riding in trees, like seen on this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KGVa05pFt0&t=154s) watch from min 1:42. disclaimer: its from snowboardprocamp if thats allowed to link here?


That is not really tree riding, given that the trees are so widely spaced and the path is so clear



Sinddk said:


> greats shouldnt be that far from it and it should be a better carving board with asym shape?


No, no reason that it should be a better carving board.



Sinddk said:


> But I heard some people mention that having a true twin as a daily driver is a bad idea.


'People' say a lot of shit - but as above, IMO for single board quiver a directional twin is the better choice for the majority of riders.


----------



## northidahomike (Dec 29, 2016)

^why do you think the directional is better than asym for a one board quiver?


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

northidahomike said:


> ^why do you think the directional is better than asym for a one board quiver?


Unless you spend 50% of your time riding switch, then something with a directional aspect will always be better, all else being equal. 

When it comes to the Standard, that directional aspect is minimal. It has a slightly lower volume tail after the contact point, that's it. Slam back inserts are great for any deep powder days, but as that's apparently unlikely for the OP, shouldn't really be a consideration. 

Honestly I don't think either Standard or Greats are the ideal board for the OP. Anything can ride switch and butter, and given that's very low on his priority list why choose a true twin (For arguments sake, Standard is true twin)

OP, look at something like the Burton Custom or Flight Attendant, Ride Berzerker, Lago Open Road, Capita Mercury, Rossignol One, Arbor Coda Camber. Plenty more options as well. Something with a little set back, more nose than tail, or more rocker in the nose etc. Twins can still ride great everywhere, but why sacrifice directional performance if switch, jibs and butters aren't a priority.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Phedder said:


> Unless you spend 50% of your time riding switch, then something with a directional aspect will always be better, all else being equal.
> 
> When it comes to the Standard, that directional aspect is minimal. It has a slightly lower volume tail after the contact point, that's it. Slam back inserts are great for any deep powder days, but as that's apparently unlikely for the OP, shouldn't really be a consideration.
> 
> ...


^^^ What he said


----------



## Sinddk (Mar 24, 2018)

Phedder said:


> Unless you spend 50% of your time riding switch, then something with a directional aspect will always be better, all else being equal.
> 
> When it comes to the Standard, that directional aspect is minimal. It has a slightly lower volume tail after the contact point, that's it. Slam back inserts are great for any deep powder days, but as that's apparently unlikely for the OP, shouldn't really be a consideration.
> 
> ...


Doesnt the standard have the same set back stance as the mercury? I saw angrysnowboarder recommend jones mountain twin if you wanted a more freeride oriented quiver of one over the mercury, since its more freestyle oriented, do you agree with him?

Ill take a look at the other boards you listed, thanks


----------



## Sinddk (Mar 24, 2018)

SGboarder said:


> *SNIP*


Thank you so much for all that info, its great for a guy buying his first new board and have to take into consideration 230230220 new things about snowboard, instead of just renting something and just riding


----------



## Sinddk (Mar 24, 2018)

Could you use capita kazu kobuko or YES. PYL as a daily driver if you don't go in the park anyway? Are they nimble enough in trees??


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

Sinddk said:


> Could you use capita kazu kobuko or YES. PYL as a daily driver if you don't go in the park anyway? Are they nimble enough in trees??


Yes I use a PYL for everything runs through the park included (no rails/boxes I'm old). Just size it right, make sure your boots and bindings are stiff enough and make it your bitch.


----------



## seanmcelroy1 (Feb 6, 2017)

I would say for a quiver of one the Standard is a better bet. It is a twin contact point to contact point but has slam back inserts and a rather large nose so it will float pretty well in deep pow. I have a two board quiver consisting of a PYL and Greats, they complement each other well but imo wouldn't be great as an only board if you do ride both park and backcountry.


----------



## sush1 (Sep 26, 2017)

seanmcelroy1 said:


> I would say for a quiver of one the Standard is a better bet. It is a twin contact point to contact point but has slam back inserts and a rather large nose so it will float pretty well in deep pow. I have a two board quiver consisting of a PYL and Greats, they complement each other well but imo wouldn't be great as an only board if you do ride both park and backcountry.


Interesting. Last year I rode the 59 standard a few days and it was very nice. I felt it was a bit stiff for a daily driver for me though, so I ended up buying the 2019 greats. Loved turning on the standard, pop seemed good and was forgiving. I rode it injured so was very tentative in the park and mostly just cruised the groomers. Would be an awesome 1 board quiver.

Thinking of adding a back country/pow board for next northern winter in either the optimistic or PYL as well. 160w or 154/157 I think, not sure about optimistic sizing though.

To add to the thread - I'd probably go for the typo if I was OP. Should do everything you want very well and will be good for progression and is a bit cheaper. Got some rocker for pow, a little set back for your daily riding and still would ride switch no problems. I haven't been on it though but it sounds like a great resort board.


----------



## seanmcelroy1 (Feb 6, 2017)

sush1 said:


> Interesting. Last year I rode the 59 standard a few days and it was very nice. I felt it was a bit stiff for a daily driver for me though, so I ended up buying the 2019 greats. Loved turning on the standard, pop seemed good and was forgiving. I rode it injured so was very tentative in the park and mostly just cruised the groomers. Would be an awesome 1 board quiver.
> 
> Thinking of adding a back country/pow board for next northern winter in either the optimistic or PYL as well. 160w or 154/157 I think, not sure about optimistic sizing though.
> 
> To add to the thread - I'd probably go for the typo if I was OP. Should do everything you want very well and will be good for progression and is a bit cheaper. Got some rocker for pow, a little set back for your daily riding and still would ride switch no problems. I haven't been on it though but it sounds like a great resort board.


sush1; personally I would go with the PYL, the PYL is camrock and the Optimistic is mostly camber. I find the camrock far more versatile and the PYL shreds the backcountry and resort extremely well. The PYL is by far my favorite board I have ever owned. Spent a few months in Revy last season and had a quiver with a handful of boards including a Salomon Ultimate Ride, NS West, Capita Kazu, and DC Space Echo and pretty much ditched them all for my PYL. I'm 5'10" 190lbs and rock a 162, super light and responsive. I have Union Falcor bindings and Burton Ion Boa boots so definitely rock some stiffer binding/boot combo. The effective edge is a little short for the length of the board and the one small negative is that is did not hold an edge on extremely hard snow quite like the Ultimate Ride, I would give it a 4/5 on edge hold, pretty good not the best. For next season I will be getting a 159 as well because I love the board that much.


----------



## sush1 (Sep 26, 2017)

seanmcelroy1 said:


> sush1; personally I would go with the PYL...


Yeah my mate has been riding one a few years and I remember the first time I picked it up I was amazed how light it is.

I would also consider something like the ride mountain pig but I'll wait to see a few more reviews or get to try one.

Only thing that made me consider the optimistic is that last season I rode a warpig for a few weeks and enjoyed it a lot, only thing I missed was the camber feel while turning, I think I was a size too small on a 151 though so maybe that made the turning feel a bit less stable than I liked also, I'm pretty sure it was just the flat profile though.


----------



## Jibsaw79 (May 24, 2018)

Some board weights in comparison (on kitchen scale with 5kg limit):
*Yes Standard 153 2018: 2900g*
Rossignol Jibsaw 153 2012: 2820g
Rossignol Jibsaw 155 2018: 2870g
LibTech T.Rice 153 HP 2015: 2840g
LibTech T.Rice 155 Climax 2018: 2800g
LibTech Box Knife 154 2018: 2940g

For me the Standard 153 has a nice allround Flex, very versatile and Fun to ride. With Slamback settings the Board floats very well for its size. The nose gets huge. Dampness is okay but not amazing.
The midbite I find a bit irritating when carving because the nose radius often locks into another carving radius than the tail radius or the nose carves a second earlier than the tail or the other way around depending on edge pressure and angle on nose or tail. On some harder snow surfaces you can feel and even hear the kink in the midbite sidecut cutting through the hard surface. Like you have a really bad burr in your edge. Midbite grips more at the bindings like Arbor Griptech (more locked in/stable feeling on edge) in comparison to Magnetraction which grips more at the center of the board (more loose/surfy feeling on edge).
I like the Standard for everything up to about 1-2 ft of Powder. On hard snow I feel vibrations and carving is a bit sketchy. For better stance options I would like 2x7 inserts instead of 2x5 and slamback or 2x6 with 1inch wider stance.


----------

