# 2017 Jones Flagship or Carbon Flagship



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

I own the wooden one, hubby the Carbon one. 

The wooden Flagship is aggressive, stable, fast, responsive. Carbon is everything as well, just _more_. Question is, do you need the _more_? Can you backup the plus on stiffness? 

I have never tried hubs Carbon (well... it's a 164, and even though I'm not shy to try long boards, I know my limits . I simply wouldn't be able to bend that plank with my 120lb). Already the wooden one is pretty stiff... leg n weight n a certain speed needed to bend it. I could imagine that the Carbon, being even stiffer, is not much fun at slow speed (more speed in a carve means more force means more bend).

I'd say if you're an aggressive rider who carves hard and likes to ride 55mph? Get a wooden Flagship.

If you ride _very_ aggressive alla time, lay down flat in high speed carves, straight line top to bottom just for the fun of hitting 70+ mph? Get the Carbon.


----------



## robotfood99 (Mar 19, 2016)

Hi, welcome to SF. 

There's an on-going discussion you might find helpful: http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/210537-jones-carbon-flagship-setup.html


----------



## Elektropow (Mar 6, 2014)

neni said:


> I own the wooden one, hubby the Carbon one.
> 
> The wooden Flagship is aggressive, stable, fast, responsive. Carbon is everything as well, just _more_. Question is, do you need the _more_? Can you backup the plus on stiffness?
> 
> ...


Yeah the wooden one was hard and aggressive but still manageable. I take it this year's models with the spoon tech makes it even more forgiving. Hand flexing both they seem to flex about the same, but the rebound out of the carbon one is just on another scale... I'd probably be fine on the wooden one for everything, but super poppy snappy boards are always more fun!


----------



## Chielsen (Oct 27, 2016)

> I own the wooden one, hubby the Carbon one.
> 
> The wooden Flagship is aggressive, stable, fast, responsive. Carbon is everything as well, just more. Question is, do you need the more? Can you backup the plus on stiffness?
> 
> ...


Thanks for your advice, I really like the 'no speed limits' aspect of the carbon but I'm mainly worried about how it handles certain types of terrain. I do most of my riding in Davos, Switzerland which tends to have a few flat/slow spots every now and then. So I'm a bit worried about the way the carbon would handle the slower speed. Does it really handle that different from the wooden one at slower speeds?


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Chielsen said:


> Thanks for your advice, I really like the 'no speed limits' aspect of the carbon but I'm mainly worried about how it handles certain types of terrain. I do most of my riding in Davos, Switzerland which tends to have a few flat/slow spots every now and then. So I'm a bit worried about the way the carbon would handle the slower speed. Does it really handle that different from the wooden one at slower speeds?


Well, easiest way to find out id it matters to you is to demo. Take a trip to SaasFee, they have the big demo snowboardbox now and Jones has boards there as well; IIRC the Carbon in 161 but to be sure, ask rep (PM with contact sent)


----------



## GDimac (Nov 19, 2015)

Lol don't really have anything significant to contribute on this topic except to say you have the resident Flagship expert/consultant helping you, so your in good hands


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Here's BA's review on that exact deck....

Angry Snowboarder/2017-Carbon Flagship


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

@BurtonAvenger also reviewed the 2017 Flagship. So you can get a side to side comparision of his impressions of both rides. 

2017 Jones Flagship

Iir,... @daveZ did a review of the 2015 Flagship on agnarchy.com. Worth a read as I don't think too much has changed about the way it rides. (...at least my read of Daves review was spot on for the way the 2016 FS I briefly owned rode!) :grin:

Agnarchy.com 2015 Jones FS


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Carbon Flagship is in my quiver. Mainly use is for big mountain/steeps, etc esp. off-piste/backcountry. My go-to board for heli rides. 
Secondary use is for bombing/aggressive carving all over the place. Board excels in gnarly conditions but also rewards hard riding on groomers.

It is pretty good in powder, has good snap for jumps (esp big ones) and is ok-ish for high-speed butters but I have better boards for those purposes.

Not recommended (to put it mildly) for jibbing/rails, general messing about or going slowly - speed is your friend on this board.

For a single board or small quiver, I would recommend the wood Flagship over the carbon version. You loose may be 1% of super gnar performance, but gain much more in versatility because it's way more playful and slightly better in powder.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

SGboarder said:


> For a single board or small quiver, I would recommend the wood Flagship over the carbon version. You loose may be 1% of super gnar performance, but gain much more in versatility because it's way more playful *and slightly better in powder*.


Curious to know why as both have the same shape. Due to the potentially slightly softer nose?


----------



## Elektropow (Mar 6, 2014)

neni said:


> Curious to know why as both have the same shape. Due to the potentially slightly softer nose?


Softer overall flex let's you lean backwards, so I assume because of that. Also easier to maneuver where as a plank board always needs more speed.


----------



## Chielsen (Oct 27, 2016)

SGboarder said:


> Carbon Flagship is in my quiver. Mainly use is for big mountain/steeps, etc esp. off-piste/backcountry. My go-to board for heli rides.
> Secondary use is for bombing/aggressive carving all over the place. Board excels in gnarly conditions but also rewards hard riding on groomers.
> 
> It is pretty good in powder, has good snap for jumps (esp big ones) and is ok-ish for high-speed butters but I have better boards for those purposes.
> ...


Thanks for the feedback, I'm starting to lean towards the wooden one, the carbon one seems to be a bit to much of a niche board for a one-board setup. I think I might have been underestimating the wooden just because the carbon one exists.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

neni said:


> Curious to know why as both have the same shape. Due to the potentially slightly softer nose?


Yes, mostly that. The carbon tends to push snow a bit more than the wood version.



Elektropow said:


> Softer overall flex let's you lean backwards, so I assume because of that. Also easier to maneuver where as a plank board always needs more speed.


Not really. If anything it is the opposite: Leaning back on wood version tends to flex the board and results in pushing around the snow.


----------



## Elektropow (Mar 6, 2014)

SGboarder said:


> Yes, mostly that. The carbon tends to push snow a bit more than the wood version.
> 
> 
> Not really. If anything it is the opposite: Leaning back on wood version tends to flex the board and results in pushing around the snow.


Interesting! I find this to be true in short pow decks where too much lean creates too much push, thus slowing you down and not letting you plane on top of the pow. Well if anything, more torsional flex and really any kind of flex lets you steer a bit easier in powder, but I take it the difference is so small you'd be hard pressed, pun intended, to notice it between the carbon and wooden models.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Elektropow said:


> Interesting! I find this to be true in short pow decks where too much lean creates too much push, thus slowing you down and not letting you plane on top of the pow. Well if anything, more torsional flex and really any kind of flex lets you steer a bit easier in powder, but I take it the difference is so small you'd be hard pressed, pun intended, to notice it between the carbon and wooden models.


Exactly, pushing the tail down by leaning back is a great way to reduce speed with short pow decks. It's like you're stepping on the brake.
Some torsional flex is nice for a pow board and you definitely don't want to the nose to be too stiff. But a floppy tail does nothing, so it gets chopped off (to sink the tail) and/or stiffened (to help with planing).


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

SGboarder said:


> Yes, mostly that. The carbon tends to push snow a bit more than the wood version.


It's a pity I don't know the Carbon myself, so Idon't know myself how different they behave in that matter, but with the regular ones I had, exactly this is what I so love abt them: the centered riding ON snow, no feeling of having to lean back, no pushing snow but this beautiful fast parallel to ground glide _on_ snow.

Did you ride the new model with the spoon yet? How doesn't it compare to last year? (My new one is still hanging on the wall, unused, no snowfall in sight over here, so I die of curiosity )


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

neni said:


> It's a pity I don't know the Carbon myself, so Idon't know myself how different they behave in that matter, but with the regular ones I had, exactly this is what I so love abt them: the centered riding ON snow, no feeling of having to lean back, no pushing snow but this beautiful fast parallel to ground glide _on_ snow.


Well, it helps that you are riding such big sticks 
I know that you have downsized a bit over the years, but for most guys the equivalent of your decks would be something in the 170-180 range. At that length and surface area it is not surprising that you get such great float/planing. 
It's a little bit like the old adage about engines: There is no replacement for displacement (I know you like English idioms  )



neni said:


> Did you ride the new model with the spoon yet? How doesn't it compare to last year? (My new one is still hanging on the wall, unused, no snowfall in sight over here, so I die of curiosity )


Have not tried a Jones 'mainstream' board (Flag, HC) with the spoon yet. I think the Storm Chaser I tried last season, but difficult to tell how much of an impact the spoon had vs the rest of the design. But I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference for most boards.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

SGboarder said:


> Well, it helps that you are riding such big sticks
> I know that you have downsized a bit over the years, but for most guys the equivalent of your decks would be something in the 170-180 range. At that length and surface area it is not surprising that you get such great float/planing.
> It's a little bit like the old adage about engines: There is no replacement for displacement (I know you like English idioms  )


Yeah, I see that point, but... I've had boards back in the day which were 158ish (like Burton Balance, Scott Radius, Palmer Liberty Carbon, Rad Air Jewel, which even was 160) and they did not deliver any kind as nice a pow riding feel as the comparable "little" 152 Flag I rode last season.

True, I still tend to size bigger than actually needed, (dunno, just can't wrap my head around those small numbers . And since I put on 10lbs, I already sort of panicked that the 152 won't suffice anymore and sized up a tad again. K, I admit that the look of the new series played a role as well  Anyways...) but size alone isn't enough if the shape ain't right.

What I maybe tried to say is that I'm glad I found that sweet shape which allowed to size down quite a bit and even so floats awesomely, better than the ol' bigger ones, but is nicely agile at the same time even tho it may still be oversized .

BTW: don't wanna sound as if this is the only deck with that sort of riding feel. It just was the first which gave _me_ that feel. Maybe, if YES would have had a tent on our mtn some years back, I may be euphoric abt them now for getting me out of under my rock not being up to date with shapes n haven't known anything else than good ol' camber boards.


----------

