# Board Sizing for Jones Flagship !!!



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

Hi All,
I know some of you have a jones flagship from discussions in the forum. Very envious, as I am looking to get one for my self.:yahoo: Would you mind sharing some experiences about the board and it's characteristics? Especially how you came to sizing yourself for the board.

I am 49 yrs and weigh 85 kg and am 167 cm, I wear a size 10 US boots( 32 prime). I am not really that tall, but solid (my kids say I' m short and stubby). 

I have looked at the sizing and have come to the conclusion that the 164 would suit my weight range( with backpack and ski gear added). But am leaning to the 163 W instead (take off a bit of length and add it to width). The intended use of the board would be for Free riding.

Has anyone had any problems with the flagship?
I really would appreciate your views and feedback.... Thanks guys


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

164 would definitely be as big as I'd go and I definitely wouldn't get a wide. A wide board, especially one that big, is gonna ride pretty damn sluggish with size 10 boots. Honestly, I think 161 would be the better fit.


----------



## Blaze182 (Sep 7, 2009)

Can't provide advice personally, but I had considered this too, and am keen to hear some thoughts. 

A friend who is about 180cm tall & 77kg has ~ 1,200-1,500 days snowboarding advised me against it purely for the fact I would ride better on something a bit more forgiving. But I'm looking for advice that says otherwise cause the board is that good - I'm looking for some justification haha. (Note, he said the board was his favourite, so it IS a good board)

That said, I'm boot size 12 and fit on a 159 board no problem, I would avoid wide decks at all cost unless there's no option. I think you'd be fine on anything 160-165 in length without needing a wide board.


----------



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

linvillegorge said:


> 164 would definitely be as big as I'd go and I definitely wouldn't get a wide. A wide board, especially one that big, is gonna ride pretty damn sluggish with size 10 boots. Honestly, I think 161 would be the better fit.


So including gear( approx 15 kg and me 85 kg ) you would recommend a 161?

I now understand that the 163W would be sluggish, but feel the 164 might be a bit big considering I am only 167 myself


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

I've been nearly that heavy myself on a 157. My powder board is a 164 and can be a bear to throw around in the trees sometimes. No way I'd want to ride that big of a board everyday. My old NS Heritage was a 160 and that was about perfect in terms of freeride sizing for me. 

I never intended to be that heavy. Took a little adjusting to travelling so much for work. Had to cut back on the eating out. :laugh:


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Also, are you riding backcountry? If not, why in the world are you lugging around 15kg of gear?


----------



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

Yes, as much backcountry as I can afford. Some groomers. I want to be able to comfortably ride New Zealand club fields, backcountry and japan pow, and if I can ever get there to Canada. 

I'm the type of person that will buy a board and hang onto it till falls to pieces:dunno:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Blaze182 said:


> A friend who is about 180cm tall & 77kg has ~ 1,200-1,500 days snowboarding advised me against it purely for the fact I would ride better on something a bit more forgiving. But I'm looking for advice that says otherwise cause the board is that good - I'm looking for some justification haha. (Note, he said the board was his favourite, so it IS a good board)


I feel your friend. It _is_ a great board, it's my favourite deck even tho I rode different ones most of last season. Ever driven a 911 on an empty highway? That's the FS on good maintained wide groomers. Stable as can be, fast, responsive, predictable, pure joy. Ever driven a 911 on a bumpy wood-track...?
I only recommend the board to ppl who realy are looking for such a specialized deck, e.g. as part of a quiver, for the pow days in deep and steep, and the days when groomers are great all day for aggressive carving and straightlining just for the fun of it. Know what you get... don't complain afterwards that it's too unforgiving in crud and not playful. You'll buy a kitchen door, which is great sometimes, and sometimes not 




Ricardo64 said:


> Has anyone had any problems with the flagship?
> I really would appreciate your views and feedback.... Thanks guys


I'm 55kg, on a 158. Float in pow is great even on flats  Problems I've had: no real problems, just the observation, that it is better than everything else I've ridden in appropriate conditions as well as PITA in bumps. As long as you have a backup for the springtime moguls or days when the resorts is very crowded and you just want to cruise, you're fine.
Quality is great, base is very resistant, wooden topsheet as well (talking '13 model).
Hubby is 182cm and your weight, has the Carbon FS in 164 and is very happy with it "I've been looking 20y for such a board" (so happy that I didn't have the chance to try the board for one turn, he won't hand it over one second). Problems he's encountered: pretty much the same; on bumpy afternoons he swaps to his comparable soft n forgiving Raptor. It's not a specific Carbon FS issue, he observed the same when riding my wooden one.
Good float with full BC equipment in deep pow. Thus the 164 would certainly be long enough for you. If you're used to shorter ones, won't hit very high speeds, won't rail high speed carves, won't hit deep pow, a 161 would probably do as well. But if you're used to ride boards that lenght, I see no need to size down.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

If you want something to ride in a freeride manor, why not get the hovercraft? I personally think whatever size you got you would learn to enjoy, but after converting your height in 'merica standards, which was 5'4, a 164 is huge. You might have mass, but with rocker in the nose, you don't need something that is the same height as you are. There will be days that a board that big won't be fun. Snapping turns in pow is an amazing feeling, get yourself a board that you can play on, don't worry about the length(too much), it will float.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

ridinbend said:


> If you want something to ride in a freeride manor, why not get the hovercraft?


IMO, the Hovy is no fun to carve groomers compared to FS.


----------



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks guys, 
I definitely know what I want which is the flag ship. Neni, you pretty much sold me there. What height is your hubby? 
Is the 164 as manoeuvrable as the 161 after all we're only talking 3 cm. 
could I split the difference and go 163W? The wide would offer more float ? Right? 

Size (cm) 154	158 161	163W	164 168W
Effective Edge (mm)	110	1140 1170	1170 1210. 1210
Tip Width (mm) 287	290 292	301 296 304
Waist Width (mm)	246	249 252	262 254 263
Tail Width (mm) 285	288 290	300. 294 302
Sidecut Radius (m)	7.9	8.5 9.1	9.3 9.3 9.3
Stance Setback (mm)	30	35 35	35 35 40
Width Regular	Regular	Regular	Wide	Regular	Wide


At the moment I feel pretty confused as to size. Must say manoeuvrability is high on my list without sacrificing float.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Ridinbend has a point with your body size... the 164 _could_ be too big in terms of inserts depending on your stance width. Hubby is 182cm, stance width is 60cm IIRC. I'm 172cm, stance width is 55cm, confers to the middle inserts on the 158.
Do you have a shop where you can actually check if your sweet stance fits the inserts well? If not, gimme the width, I can check at home. 

Haha... yes... sizing is confusing and besides the purpose of a board, also a big personal thing. Ask 10 ppl and you'll get 12 opinions . However, I defenitely wouldn't go for a W. Yes, it would offer more float, but the plus of 1cm _is_ recognizable, you loose leverage, board will ride coarse. Not a point in pow, but carving groomers you'd regret it. Compared to that, the plus or minus of 3cm in lenght is a more minor point. Maneuverability is hard to judge. Naturally, the 161 _will_ turn easier than the 164, but to which extent, depends on the rider... (a long board is also easy to turn, it's just more work ). 

What sizes do you usually ride?


----------



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

Neni, I usually ride 156 gnu carbon credit and 159 dirty pillow and sometimes if I'm lucky I get on my sons 151 lib tech Trs. 

We all ride Goofy in our household ( don't know why ) stance + 15, 44 cm, +15


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Ricardo64 said:


> Must say manoeuvrability is high on my list without sacrificing float.


 They are natural opponents... flip a coin. If you know all aspects, and both would fit with some pros and cons on both options, at some point you just need to go with your guts.

BTW: I've been insecure if going with the 158 or 156, hubby was thinking to and fro if getting a 164 or 168 for two aspects: agility vs. float in deep. (And yes, it's kind of splitting hairs as the FS isn’t a very agile board anyway and it floats great anyway)

He chose the shorter thinking the deep days are rare so he can easily sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events. 
I chose the longer one thinking that the deep days are rare so I absolutely don't want to sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events :laugh:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Ricardo64 said:


> 44 cm


That's pretty narrow... how did you measure? From center to center (both lateraly and vertically)?


----------



## Ricardo64 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks Neni, 
that last post helped, I will go for the 161


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

neni said:


> He chose the shorter thinking the deep days are rare so he can easily sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events.
> I chose the longer one thinking that the deep days are rare so I absolutely don't want to sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events :laugh:


I'm gonna show my ignorance here, but I don't understand how a larger board is beneficial in the deeper pow. As a probably totally wrong analogy, when you are swimming it's not easier or harder to swim once you get to a certain depth.

It would seem to me that once you get to a relatively small amount of deep (6-12"?) it just becomes a matter of preference on how you like to float.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

f00bar said:


> I'm gonna show my ignorance here, but I don't understand how a larger board is beneficial in the deeper pow. As a probably totally wrong analogy, when you are swimming it's not easier or harder to swim once you get to a certain depth.
> 
> It would seem to me that once you get to a relatively small amount of deep (6-12"?) it just becomes a matter of preference on how you like to float.


How easy you'll submarine depends besides of board surface, riders weight and distribution also on how light/heavy, dry/wet the snow is, on slope steepness and how fast you are. You'll hardly feel a difference between 6, 12 or 20" if it's cold heavy pow but if it's ligh, you'll feel the difference between 6 and 12 and 20". You easily cut 15" deep in a turn. (Can't speak of deeper, didn’t have the luck yet). Additionally to that: the deeper it gets, the less you want to get stuck  thus more surface to avoid that risk and stay easier on top even on flatter passages.
My Mothership is only 2cm shorter than the FS and a tad more narrow but I feel a big difference in how good they float. It's either lean back on flats or just surf the flats.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

neni said:


> How easy you'll submarine depends besides of board surface, riders weight and distribution also on how light/heavy, dry/wet the snow is, on slope steepness and how fast you are. You'll hardly feel a difference between 6, 12 or 20" if it's cold heavy pow but if it's ligh, you'll feel the difference between 6 and 12 and 20". You easily cut 15" deep in a turn. (Can't speak of deeper, didn’t have the luck yet). Additionally to that: the deeper it gets, the less you want to get stuck  thus more surface to avoid that risk and stay easier on top even on flatter passages.
> My Mothership is only 2cm shorter than the FS and a tad more narrow but I feel a big difference in how good they float. It's either lean back on flats or just surf the flats.


I guess that makes sense with the tendency for deeper snow to be lighter so you want a bit more area.

In an internet world of 5 word responses that more often than not leave you with just more questions your responses are almost always nice to read and greatly appreciated.

Sorry for your loss! (World Cup)


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Ricardo64 said:


> Thanks Neni,
> that last post helped, I will go for the 161


Absolutely. Just measured the distance between the most inner inserts of the 164: 46cm


f00bar: thanks :blush: I thought it's a weakness of mine to be unable to post short answers and always write books to express my thoughts :laugh:


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

neni said:


> He chose the shorter thinking the deep days are rare so he can easily sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events.
> I chose the longer one thinking that the deep days are rare so I absolutely don't want to sacrifice a tad of float for these rare events :laugh:


So now after the fact, who do you think made the better choice?

I'm with you on this one.

Powder days are the absolute best days, I choose longer & even more pow specific.

I have no problem sacrificing shit days

So my pow days are mind blowing:thumbsup::bowdown:


TT


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

timmytard said:


> So now after the fact, who do you think made the better choice?


So far both of us  we didn't have a good season, warm n dry at home as well as in AK, no _really_ deep pow all season, the 164 did great in what we had, and he absolutely loves to ride it on groomers. I'm pretty sure he'll cope deep pow with it as well, as he's more the fall line type of rider and has less issues with getting stuck. They match very well  

I chose the slighty shorter (156), more agile Mothership for trips in challenging conditions and never know what's behind the next corner terrain which I think was a good decision as the Flag would have been more trying there but hope that next season will be a good one again, eager to ride the Flag again in my wide open terrain at home.


----------

