# Jones Mountain Twin or NS Cobra



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

Hey all. I am looking to buy one of these two boards for the upcoming season. I would be pairing them with my Now Drives I ride trees and moguls as much as possible and I want something good for powder. My concern with the Mountain Twin is that I have read that it is not very fast edge to edge. Can anyone provide any insight on that? Overall I am just not sure if CRC OR RCR will be better for what I want to do. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## supercollider (Feb 2, 2009)

I've never ridden the cobra, but I like the Mountain twin. I thought it had great powder performance (for a twinn-ish shape), so much so that I ended up using my pick your line a lot less than I expected to. 
I've ridden R-C-R decs and C-R-C decks, and I do find that the ns/lib type of rocker is easier to throw around in deep snow, generally speaking. That kink in the middle seems to make it want to pivot there easily.
That said, on bumped out end of day runs, they also find the bottom of the bump more easily than the jones style- so its easier to hold a carve on bumpy terrain with the jones. 
Also, I did not find the edge to edge to be horrible on the jones. I noticed it in the trees but adjusted and got dialed to it. Between the two, I now follow the jones school of thought for my all terrain stick, that camber between the feet comes in handy when you're on edge and hit an unexpected patch of chopped up snow. My two cents.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

So if I am going to do alot of trees and moguls you would suggest a CRC profile more than the RCR profile? Do you feel that CRC is better for powder? Thanks for the reply!


----------



## ryannorthcott (Dec 17, 2010)

supercollider said:


> I've never ridden the cobra, but I like the Mountain twin. I thought it had great powder performance (for a twinn-ish shape), so much so that I ended up using my pick your line a lot less than I expected to.
> I've ridden R-C-R decs and C-R-C decks, and I do find that the ns/lib type of rocker is easier to throw around in deep snow, generally speaking. That kink in the middle seems to make it want to pivot there easily.
> That said, on bumped out end of day runs, they also find the bottom of the bump more easily than the jones style- so its easier to hold a carve on bumpy terrain with the jones.
> Also, I did not find the edge to edge to be horrible on the jones. I noticed it in the trees but adjusted and got dialed to it. Between the two, I now follow the jones school of thought for my all terrain stick, that camber between the feet comes in handy when you're on edge and hit an unexpected patch of chopped up snow. My two cents.


Agreed about camber profile being better for choppy stuff on the mountain twin. I have a mountain twin as well but only have one day on it (got it at the very end of the season). With the mellow magnetraction and camber underfoot it holds an edge remarkably well and I feel like I can power through anything on the board. It has good pop and is great on jumps so I will be using it for charging around the mountain and M-L sized park jumps. In tight glades I prefer my Turbo Dream, but only because it is lighter and 3 cm shorter, meaning it doesn't kill my legs as quickly to throw the thing around. 
Like I said though I've only got one day on it but intend to do a full review on the board when I have a few more sessions under my belt in different conditions.


----------



## binarypie (Nov 29, 2009)

I think these boards are a little different.

The MT is going to be a little more playful than the Cobra but probably float better as well. The corba is going to require more work but give you something edging towards freeride boards. 

I've said it before though. If I could only own a single board the mountain twin would be it.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

RCR has a more locked in feeling while CRC has a more skatey, playful feeling. I've owned the Cobra and have ridden the MT. I prefer the MT. I like the Cobra and ultimately think you'd be happy with either, but the Cobra absolutely did not have the powder performance I expected out of it. If you're looking for a middle of the road flex, directionally biased CRC board, it's definitely worth a look.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

Alright, I guess my main concern on the MT was the fact that a review said it was not as fast edge to edge as they would have liked. Which, since I do mostly glades and moguls, seemed like that could really hinder me. I am hoping since I will be pairing it with NOW Drives that it will make up for the slow edge to edge response. Thanks for the advice guys. I will be picking up a MT within the next few weeks.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

The guy may have had small feet. Or, he may have just came off of a soft CRC board. A lot of different variables could've been at play. IMO, CRC has the feel of being faster edge to edge compared to RCR, but I'm not sure that it actually is. Boards of those two camber configurations just ride so differently that it's kind of tough to do a true head to head comparison. If you have a chance to demo both camber profiles, I'd highly recommend it. One will almost certainly appeal to you more than the other and then you have your answer for sure.


----------



## Tatanka Head (Jan 13, 2014)

I've never heard anything or noticed the board being show edge to edge. I've only read about people who generally don't like magnatraction because they feel it makes the board sluggish (I've never really noticed it). The mnt twin is a solid board and you won't be disappointed.


----------



## supercollider (Feb 2, 2009)

Sooner or later flex/Width comes into play RE: Edge/Edge, regardless of camber profiles.

I'm comparing the mtn twin to other CRC boards i have ridden such as the 
riders choice (157.5)
nitro team rocker (159)
never summer SL-R (158)
TRS (157)

These are all in the same ballpark flex wise, and i found the mtn twin to be more work switching edges in powder/tight trees. AGAIN, this was not much.

I've also ridden a lando and that board was a beast.... not quite as fast to whip around, but this is where the stiffer flex patterns come in to play.

To get around the edge transfer, I would just use the camber and bounce the board from edge to edge rather than just roll from edge to edge. Its also a fun way to turn.

One thing I did like about the CRC style in pow is how easy it is to just "wash" the tail around to scrub speed in tight areas. I still choose the jones style for all around conditions

To answer your original question: Trees, its close. In moguls, I'd like the camber under foot.


----------



## Mike256 (Oct 13, 2013)

I have never tried a jones board, but I own the Cobra and used it (somewhat) last season, maybe 20 days on it max. I think it is a bit of a pointless board. It did very little very well. I agree with linvillegorge that its powder performance was not what I expected. I loved taking it out on early morning smooth steep groomers to get a buzz that way but as soon as there was chop I went home, it just got sketchy in the bumps like what supercollider was saying. I didn't like it in the trees either unless I could pick an almost straight line on a powder day. I found I took my 154 evo (which I love to pieces) when there was a chance of steep and deep and just push through it rather than taking my cobra at the thought of having to ride it out at the end of the day or do anything other than open powder or early morning groomers. My 2 cents anyways.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

Hmmmm I will definitely steer clear of the cobra then... Is there any other RCR or CRC board I should look into for what I want to do with it (Trees, moguls, good in powder)? I was kinda checking out the Marhar Throwback but I am not sure I want to risk it with a brand that is so small and unknown.


----------



## Seppuccu (Dec 4, 2012)

Rossi One?


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

miplatt88 said:


> Hmmmm I will definitely steer clear of the cobra then... Is there any other RCR or CRC board I should look into for what I want to do with it (Trees, moguls, good in powder)? I was kinda checking out the Marhar Throwback but I am not sure I want to risk it with a brand that is so small and unknown.


The thing with the RCR profile is that you have to commit to turns... you havr to throw your body mechanics into a turn/carve (there's a few online carving tutorials, look for them and you'll see what i mean). The CRC is a bit more forgiving in that you can hesitate a bit or half-arse a turn and you will get some reaction from the board... so when you need to count on your edge (ie going fast, choppy terrain, deep turns, etc), the RCR is much more secure. But by the same token, when your technique is so-so or half-arsed you will pay.

On boards like MT which are a bit stiffer than soft/med i find the best is a responsive baseplate. I had my board on Burton Mission with the Re:flex baseplate and it was tough and slow to get full response... changed to Capos (aluminum baseplate) and immediately felt the extra torsional strenght and muuuuch snappy response. So with bindings like Cartel, Atlas, Capo, Now Drive etc you should be able to make it snappy.


----------



## onitsukatiger (Mar 16, 2014)

F1EA said:


> The thing with the RCR profile is that you have to commit to turns... you havr to throw your body mechanics into a turn/carve (there's a few online carving tutorials, look for them and you'll see what i mean). The CRC is a bit more forgiving in that you can hesitate a bit or half-arse a turn and you will get some reaction from the board... so when you need to count on your edge (ie going fast, choppy terrain, deep turns, etc), the RCR is much more secure. But by the same token, when your technique is so-so or half-arsed you will pay.
> 
> On boards like MT which are a bit stiffer than soft/med i find the best is a responsive baseplate. I had my board on Burton Mission with the Re:flex baseplate and it was tough and slow to get full response... changed to Capos (aluminum baseplate) and immediately felt the extra torsional strenght and muuuuch snappy response. So with bindings like Cartel, Atlas, Capo, Now Drive etc you should be able to make it snappy.


*slight hijack*
I was able to snag a 2014 MT twin at the end of last season. I haven't had any time on it yet, but I was planning to use my 2014 reflex missions I had on my antler. Did it really feel that tough to control the MT with the missions? And how are the cartels "stiffer"? They're made from the same material and reflex uses the same base plate shape right? I never understood the difference between missions and cartels apart from the hiback design.

But, to the OP, like many have said on here, it depends a lot on the rider's skill and ability to find a good line. I think you can do well in conditions with either board that is "all mountain" based on your skill - you just have to adjust. When looking for a specific board (powder, alpine etc.), then board tech/design can make more of a difference. I personally went with the MT to try RCR this season (pop, more stability).


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

F1EA said:


> The thing with the RCR profile is that you have to commit to turns... you havr to throw your body mechanics into a turn/carve (there's a few online carving tutorials, look for them and you'll see what i mean). The CRC is a bit more forgiving in that you can hesitate a bit or half-arse a turn and you will get some reaction from the board... so when you need to count on your edge (ie going fast, choppy terrain, deep turns, etc), the RCR is much more secure. But by the same token, when your technique is so-so or half-arsed you will pay.
> 
> On boards like MT which are a bit stiffer than soft/med i find the best is a responsive baseplate. I had my board on Burton Mission with the Re:flex baseplate and it was tough and slow to get full response... changed to Capos (aluminum baseplate) and immediately felt the extra torsional strenght and muuuuch snappy response. So with bindings like Cartel, Atlas, Capo, Now Drive etc you should be able to make it snappy.


I guess that was my main concern with RCR was having to always be on top of you game. And as everyone who does trees and moguls alot knows, you cant always commit to a turn. You do alot of ad libbing and taking what the terrain gives you. You can't always plan out a line. I will probably still go with an MT and hope that my Now Drives will let me wip the board around like I need to.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

onitsukatiger said:


> *slight hijack*
> I was able to snag a 2014 MT twin at the end of last season. I haven't had any time on it yet, but I was planning to use my 2014 reflex missions I had on my antler. Did it really feel that tough to control the MT with the missions? And how are the cartels "stiffer"? They're made from the same material and reflex uses the same base plate shape right? I never understood the difference between missions and cartels apart from the hiback design.
> 
> But, to the OP, like many have said on here, it depends a lot on the rider's skill and ability to find a good line. I think you can do well in conditions with either board that is "all mountain" based on your skill - you just have to adjust. When looking for a specific board (powder, alpine etc.), then board tech/design can make more of a difference. I personally went with the MT to try RCR this season (pop, more stability).


Same material and shape, but different concentration (40% Cartel, 30% Mission on the newer model). Also different highback.

And by the way, this didnt happen in the Mountain Twin. What i said is on the Endeavor Live 2014. Similar shape to the Mtn Twin, but slightly stiffer, and none o that magne-traction thingy...


----------



## ryannorthcott (Dec 17, 2010)

miplatt88 said:


> I guess that was my main concern with RCR was having to always be on top of you game. And as everyone who does trees and moguls alot knows, you cant always commit to a turn. You do alot of ad libbing and taking what the terrain gives you. You can't always plan out a line. I will probably still go with an MT and hope that my Now Drives will let me wip the board around like I need to.


You will be fine, I rode heaps of glades in the MT on my last day on it and it wasn't like it was unwieldy, I would say just not quite as nimble. IMO the pros of RCR outweigh the cons.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

miplatt88 said:


> I guess that was my main concern with RCR was having to always be on top of you game. And as everyone who does trees and moguls alot knows, you cant always commit to a turn. You do alot of ad libbing and taking what the terrain gives you. You can't always plan out a line. I will probably still go with an MT and hope that my Now Drives will let me wip the board around like I need to.


Yep i think you'll be fine with the Drives. I get really nice snappy response with the Capos and my board is stiffer than MT, so Drive should be good.

But yea you do have to be on your game most of the time (obviously depends on your ability and how the snow is). And that's exactly the difficulty in trees, and for example landing stuff off hits and riding switch... The CRC feels more forgiving and floaty which is exactly why it is less stable and precise.



ryannorthcott said:


> IMO the pros of RCR outweigh the cons.


Exactly this.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Mike256 said:


> I didn't like it in the trees either unless I could pick an almost straight line on a powder day..


Weird. IMO, the Cobra is the best board in the NS lineup for trees.

I don't necessarily agree with the comments on here that CRC requires you to be on top of your game. It's a fairly forgiving camber profile IMO. You just have to get used to it. It rides a lot differently than traditional camber or RCR.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

ryannorthcott said:


> IMO the pros of RCR outweigh the cons.


100% personal preference. There are no hard set right and wrong answers when it comes to camber profiles. In general, I prefer CRC > RCR but I've owned and ridden both.

IMO, the biggest mistake NS has made in recent years in terms of board development is acting like CRC is the answer to everything on a snowboard. It's not.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

linvillegorge said:


> Weird. IMO, the Cobra is the best board in the NS lineup for trees.


Depends what you're used to as well, I loved the Cobra in pow but that's because my previous boards have been pants in anything more than a few inches deep


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

linvillegorge said:


> 100% personal preference. There are no hard set right and wrong answers when it comes to camber profiles. In general, I prefer CRC > RCR but I've owned and ridden both.
> 
> IMO, the biggest mistake NS has made in recent years in terms of board development is acting like CRC is the answer to everything on a snowboard. It's not.


Do you prefer CRC to RCR? If so, who does CRC the best? I owned a GNU Pickle for a few months and I despised the Magnetraction on it. I was looking at a Marhar Archaic but IDK. Do you think that would be a good CRC board?


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

miplatt88 said:


> Do you prefer CRC to RCR? If so, who does CRC the best? I owned a GNU Pickle for a few months and I despised the Magnetraction on it. I was looking at a Marhar Archaic but IDK. Do you think that would be a good CRC board?


I'm not a fan of MT either. The mellower 5S version I can deal with and could even see myself growing to like it, but I don't care for the aggressive 7S version at all.

RCR basically rides like traditional camber, just less catchy and better float in powder. If you like that locked in feeling of traditional camber, but want something a little more playful and better in pow, then you'll like RCR.

I have no personal experience with Marhar but I've heard nothing but good things.


----------



## ryannorthcott (Dec 17, 2010)

linvillegorge said:


> I'm not a fan of MT either. The mellower 5S version I can deal with and could even see myself growing to like it, but I don't care for the aggressive 7S version at all.
> 
> RCR basically rides like traditional camber, just less catchy and better float in powder. If you like that locked in feeling of traditional camber, but want something a little more playful and better in pow, then you'll like RCR.
> 
> I have no personal experience with Marhar but I've heard nothing but good things.


Agreed, I am definitely a fan of that 'locked in' feeling. My reverse camber Turbo Dream definitely does not give me that, although it is good for other things. I feel like mervin tries to compensate for the lack of 'locked-in feeling' by using aggressive magnetraction, to its detriment.
Again, just my opinion and take it with a grain of salt as I haven't had a lot of time to analyze any mervins, joneses, etc., only going on limited impressions.


----------



## binarypie (Nov 29, 2009)

If you are looking for a camber ride without all the camber bite I'd suggest taking a spin on the aviator then. I have one as my park board and I like it a lot.

My light review is here

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/general-reviews/111729-review-2014-jones-aviator-152-a.html


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Back to the OP on Marhar. They are some of the highest quality boards coming out of the US. 

Boards I've had good times on or expect to do very well for you're riding: Salomon Assassin, Flow Drifter (what I'm actually riding right now for this purpose), Yes Standard, Slash Brainstorm, Mt Twin, Burton Custom FV, K2 Happy Hour or Turbo, or a Nitro Team Gull.


----------



## Mike256 (Oct 13, 2013)

linvillegorge said:


> Weird. IMO, the Cobra is the best board in the NS lineup for trees.


I didn't find this at all having ridden the evo and the proto as well. I could see that being true with mellow well spaced trees in untracked powder but that's aligning a few stars. I just couldn't get it to flow well. I guess everyone experiences stuff differently though.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

I learned how to snowboard on an old crappy camber board but I have been riding for the past 3 season on a Ride Machete. So i guess my only concern is going from a flat/micro rocker profile to a RCR profile. I absolutely adore my machete in moguls and trees but I want something better in powder with a little more grip for steeps. I am riding a 157w right now and I need to be in something a little larger like a 161w. So I figure the Mountain Twin kinda does everything I want. Plus I can still use my Machete with my crappy flows for the days I just want to dick around.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

miplatt88 said:


> I learned how to snowboard on an old crappy camber board but I have been riding for the past 3 season on a Ride Machete. So i guess my only concern is going from a flat/micro rocker profile to a RCR profile. I absolutely adore my machete in moguls and trees but I want something better in powder with a little more grip for steeps. I am riding a 157w right now and I need to be in something a little larger like a 161w. So I figure the Mountain Twin kinda does everything I want. Plus I can still use my Machete with my crappy flows for the days I just want to dick around.


You should be fine. Biggest difference will be more pop and energy transfer and a bit more edge hold. 

Try and see if you can also check out:
Salomon Assassin, Arbor Element, Coda, Ride Bezerker, Yes Assym/Greats. But the Mtn Tiwn should be fine.

Also think about the sidecut radius to get an idea/comparison how nimble it will be in trees compared to your Machete...


----------



## supercollider (Feb 2, 2009)

Nivek said:


> Back to the OP on Marhar. They are some of the highest quality boards coming out of the US.
> 
> Boards I've had good times on or expect to do very well for you're riding: Salomon Assassin, Flow Drifter (what I'm actually riding right now for this purpose), Yes Standard, Slash Brainstorm, Mt Twin, Burton Custom FV, K2 Happy Hour or Turbo, or a Nitro Team Gull.


@nivek, have you ridden the standard? I'm reeeeaaaaly curious.
Trying to decide between this, the mt twin (again) and the mt twin limited. I wonder how much it would give up to the mountain twins in powder.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

I have not but it is high on my list of must rides.

It's the old Basic shape with the core construction from last year's Asym. The Standard is not asym though, so don't get that confused.


----------



## Lovethebean (Oct 7, 2012)

I owned the first version of the Jones MT and now own a Cobra and ride Now bindings as well. I wanted to love the Jones and in the right conditions it was a great board but.....the Cobra is better. It's not as stiff but in powder it is way more fun then the MT. On hardback the cobra can be a little loose feeling you just need to work the edge a little more. The other big difference is the dampening, the MT will let you feel everything which can be good but also fatiguing on those days with crap conditions. The Cobra just soaks up everything and I love that. So my vote goes to the Cobra.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

Just a quick follow up.... I recently talked to a sales rep who said that the 2014/15 Jones Mountain Twin no longer has a setback. Which means it is no longer slightly directional... so that kinda rules the newer Mountain Twins out.


----------



## binarypie (Nov 29, 2009)

miplatt88 said:


> Just a quick follow up.... I recently talked to a sales rep who said that the 2014/15 Jones Mountain Twin no longer has a setback. Which means it is no longer slightly directional... so that kinda rules the newer Mountain Twins out.


Maybe take a look at the Aviator ?


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

i don't want something that stiff. I'm not charging ridiculous lines lol I don't get why they took the set back off the Mtn Twin. Kinda dumb. That was one thing i really liked about it.


----------



## Karpediem (Aug 29, 2007)

Couldn't you just set your bindings back yourself if that's what you wanted? How much was the setback in the older model?


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Karpediem said:


> Couldn't you just set your bindings back yourself if that's what you wanted? How much was the setback in the older model?


Yeah I was going to ask him the same. 
I ride a directional twin (longer and higher nose, centered sidecut) with the same RCR profile and ride it slightly more added setback. It's neat. No issues whatsoever.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

i was kinda thinking of doing that... I wonder if it no longer has a set back but still has a directional profile... I guess i just kinda wanted a directional board seeing as i never ride switch. Or if i do it is simply to get myself unstuck or something.


----------



## binarypie (Nov 29, 2009)

miplatt88 said:


> i was kinda thinking of doing that... I wonder if it no longer has a set back but still has a directional profile... I guess i just kinda wanted a directional board seeing as i never ride switch. Or if i do it is simply to get myself unstuck or something.


Aviator really isn't that much stiffer than the mountain twin. I've owned both (12/13 twin and 13/14 aviator). You should go check them out at a shop if you can. Or order from a place that takes returns like backcountry or rei and get the board in your hands to see how you like it.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

I actually have been looking for a 13/14 Mtn Twin because those had the carbon rods and the setback but i cannot find any. I probably will get the Mtn Twin from backcountry and use it for 30 days to see how i like it.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

^There's a ton of reviews on here about the Cobra...not sure if you've read most of them but dreampow's review is generally regarded as one of the best:

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/neversummer/80570-review-2014-never-summer-cobra.html


----------

