# 2012 travis rice w/HP



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

need to know you're foot size... as Wired would request, preferably barefoot in millimeters.


----------



## schmitty34 (Dec 28, 2007)

ylnad123 said:


> Looking at getting a travis rice this year in a 157. I am 5'10 about 170 lbs. After reading some reviews some people state that turn initiation is somewhat hard on this board because of it's width and that it doesn't have much rocker in it.
> 
> For the people that have ridden the board, do you guys think it's pretty hard to get on edge or are people exaggerating a bit? I would call myself an intermediate boarder, I had no issues with a K2 turbo dream, lib trs btx, or banana magic. Do you think there will be much difference with the T.Rice compared to these other boards?


it is pretty similar to the TRS and the magic so if you liked those, you'll like the TRice. It is stiffer than the TRS so consider that. I think the stiffness is similar to the magic so that should be a good gauge. The I'm pretty sure the C2BTX on the rice is the same as the TRS so that will tell you how much rocker it has. 

I have the TRice from last year in 161.5 and have no problems edge to edge. I like the C2BTX for carving and better float in the powder.

As for the width, like the other the post earlier, that depends on your boot size.


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

My cm size is probably 28 but I fit into a 9.5 boot. 

Either way I think I am going to stick with my magic again this season and see if anything changes next season with the t.rice. I really want to try a t.rice but don't want to spend the money on it just yet. Not sure if I will really notice that much difference between it and the magic, I just wish the magic had full c2 instead of the wannabe c2. 

By the way is anyone else having trouble riding pony lifts with the magic or other btx boards? The board gets really squirmy while riding up pony lifts, just wondering if I am doing something wrong.


----------



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

Well your foot is plenty big enough for turn initiation on the Rice... not sure about your squirrlyness regarding your magic as I haven't ridden one (157 T.Rice here) but I've read it has the most rocker of any lib board???


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

danm said:


> Well your foot is plenty big enough for turn initiation on the Rice... not sure about your squirrlyness regarding your magic as I haven't ridden one (157 T.Rice here) but I've read it has the most rocker of any lib board???


I think the skate banana has more rocker, the magic has very subtle c2.

Knowing how impulsive I am, chances are I will end up getting the T.Rice at some point this season.


----------



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

Well, if you like hard charging, jumps and drops you'll love the T.Rice...


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

ylnad123 said:


> I think the skate banana has more rocker, the magic has very subtle c2.
> 
> Knowing how impulsive I am, chances are I will end up getting the T.Rice at some point this season.


Pretty sure the 2011 Banana Magic has more banana than any other board, 2011 Lib Tech Banana Magic Sneak Peek - YouTube at least according to the Lib Tech rep.

Not trying to prove you wrong just giving some info in case that helps with anything.

From the searching i have done i believe the 2012 magic is listed as a c2 while the 2011 was BTX (i may be wrong but its what i have found on reviews and lib's site) The T Rice was c2 last year and this year also.


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

I gave up on lib tech marketing a long time ago. Every rep and every web page says something different. The lib website lists it as c2, but it's not really c2. Some reps say it has mild c2 but others like this one in the video pretty much say it's full rocker. You never know what you are getting, that is why it is so hard to decide on which lib board to get.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Yeah i have to agree i think it is hard to tell whats what, i do know i have ridden the 2012 t rice and i have the 2012 gnu riders choice, i loved them both, they are both very similar boards and i found that the t rice HP has more pop than my Gnu. Not that it helps you as you are looking at the magic. I dont know enough about the magic to compare it but i think you would be excited with the T Rice. I love blunt tipped boards which is one of the main reasons i stuck with the riders choice and sold my t rice.


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

cjcameron11 said:


> Yeah i have to agree i think it is hard to tell whats what, i do know i have ridden the 2012 t rice and i have the 2012 gnu riders choice, i loved them both, they are both very similar boards and i found that the t rice HP has more pop than my Gnu. Not that it helps you as you are looking at the magic. I dont know enough about the magic to compare it but i think you would be excited with the T Rice. I love blunt tipped boards which is one of the main reasons i stuck with the riders choice and sold my t rice.


Have you seen much difference between turn initiation with the riders choice and t.rice? Was it easier to get on edge with the riders choice? I had the TRS and loved the fact that I could just lean just a little bit and I would already be on an edge.


----------



## Irahi (May 19, 2011)

I ride a 157 T.rice HP @ 155 lbs with size 8 feet, and I feel like the turn initiation is just fine. I do feel like I have to lean a bit farther forward (towards the nose) to get really good bite on ice and (really) hardpack than I do on my positive camber boards, but that just took a little bit of getting used to.

The board is only mildly rockered, the overall profile is pretty straight, the tip and tail contact points aren't really much higher than the rockered center, so it feels much more like a traditional board than you might expect.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

To be honest i didnt see much difference between turn initiation, while i found the t rice HP was more poppy out of turns (not hugely like a cambered board). I felt the both powered through turns pretty evenly, Both boards are pretty even specs wise, both RC is 125contact length TR is 127, RC is 8.1 sidecut TR is 8.5, the waist and tips are also very similar and both are true twins with c2.

I have ridden the TRS for about 3 mins and then my binding i was using broke so i cant compare them really. My buddy loves hs TRS and has ridden my RC, he loved my RC for switch cos its a true twin and his TRS is directional. Dunno if this helps


----------



## Nino (Oct 26, 2011)

I just pulled the trigger on a T.Rice Pro C2BTX HP Blunt Tip 157cm. 

I'm 5'10 (177cm), 85kg, size 10.5 boot and I've got some Burton Cartel Re:Flex bindings to go with. Been boarding for about 5 years, about 3-4 weeks a year. 

Till now I've been on a Burton 2008 Malolo 158cm board with custom brew burton bindings. Been a good board but hoping I can start learning some tricks and jumps with the t.rice.

Should be delivered in a couple weeks so if anyone has any cosmetic q's then happy to answer.


----------



## turbospartan (Oct 27, 2010)

The Banana Magic most defintely has a "hybrid" camber profile, with areas of reverse and regular camber. 

This is a 2010 Magic laying on my kitchen table, you can see that it isn't just a regular "banana". 

I believe Lib originally called this "enhanced" BTX, before it started using the C2 name.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Yeah I think as previously stated its hard to know what boards have until you actually get them, as Internet and reps all say different things about them being c2 ec2 btx enhanced btx etc


----------



## crazyface (Mar 1, 2008)

hey ylnad123, If you ever plan on getting rid of you banana magic, I'd be more than willing to take it off of your hands


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

You know i just put my Gnu RC on the table like that ^^ and had a look, mine looks way less pronounced banana and cambered than that magic, i mean it is almost more flat than c2, and i have only got 8 days on that board. I reckon when i step into it it would be about 96.8879% flat.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Heres a pic


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

Yeah your riders choice should be less pronounced since it has full c2. Should be closer to the t.rice rocker than to the magic. I am starting to wonder what ec2 would look like on the table.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Yeah I knew it was full c2 just like the t rice but I was suprised at how much more rockered and cambered the magic looks on the table. If anyone has an ec2 board post a pic like this so we can see cheers


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

cjcameron11 said:


> Yeah I knew it was full c2 just the the t rice but I was suprised at how much more rocketed and cambered the magic looks on the table. If anyone has an ec2 board post a pic like this so we can see cheers


Have you ridden a full btx board? I am wondering if c2 still has the same skate feel when initiating turns or not. I had a trs btx and loved the skate feel just wished it was more stable, I am wondering if c2 is the answer, or if you lose that skate feel with c2.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

My first BTX board was a 2010 skunk ape. I liked it at first but as i got better i found it was sketchy when skating and also found it "loose" on the hill when i started charging harder. While i loved the feeling of not catching an edge easily i found it a bit to rockered for my liking. Now the C2 still has a skate type feel but i believe is much more stable, i find that when i and transitioning edge to edge that the C2 bites more easily and i feel like i can be more aggressive. On the flats it isnt the same skate feeling as a full BTX but it still has some of the playfullness.

Again im sure other people have more experience than i do but in my opinion i would not ride a BTX after riding C2


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

cjcameron11 said:


> Heres a pic


One thing I notice on my magic is that it has much less camber on the back than the front. The front almost touches the table but the back doesn't even come close. The c2 looks even on both sides. Here is a picture of it next to a 2012 trs c2


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

By looking at the pics the TRS is very similar to my riders choice and the t rice, almost hard to tell the difference hoestly. by looking at the magic it looks like the rocker being more pronounced makes the board sit like that, i wonder if you tried to balance the board on its rocker with even gap at each end if then it might actually look even cambered.

You have me searching now and i found these things to look at and explain some more.

Lib Tech Snowboards Snowboard Technology

Lib Tech Skate Banana vs Banana Magic vs Attack Banana snowboard reviews by Board Insiders - YouTube


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

I am guessing that rocker in the back is why the board was so squirmy for me on pony lifts. I could not keep the board straight. It now makes me think I want a board with c2.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Yeah what I get out of all the web sites and pics is that while enhanced btx does have camber regions the rocker is far more pronounced than the c2 rocker, I love my riders choice I would recommend it in a heart beat, plus I think alot of people have the t rice (as did I) and having the RC is good cos I'm not another guy with a t rice on the hill


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

I am now thinking TRS because I can get it for $100 cheaper than retail. I keep hearing the RC is the same as the TRS with the exception of the base. But your friend likes his TRS more and you like the RC more?


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

cjcameron11 said:


> By looking at the pics the TRS is very similar to my riders choice and the t rice, almost hard to tell the difference hoestly. by looking at the magic it looks like the rocker being more pronounced makes the board sit like that, i wonder if you tried to balance the board on its rocker with even gap at each end if then it might actually look even cambered.
> 
> You have me searching now and i found these things to look at and explain some more.
> 
> ...



I pushed down on the biding sets on both, it was pretty hard to get the back of the magic to touch the table while the front touched it with minimal pressure. The TRS i could just push down a little and both sides were touching the table. Looking at the lib descriptions, the magic seems to be the opposite of C1.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

i really dont know the main differences between the RC and TRS, I thought the TRS was a directional twin but the web site said it is true twin like the RC. The stats are very similar on both boards so maybe it will come down to which one you like better. I love my board cos its my board, if i had the TRS i may feel the same about that. I dont have enough experience on the TRS to say which rides better.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

cjcameron11 said:


> i really dont know the main differences between the RC and TRS, I thought the TRS was a directional twin but the web site said it is true twin like the RC. The stats are very similar on both boards so maybe it will come down to which one you like better. I love my board cos its my board, if i had the TRS i may feel the same about that. I dont have enough experience on the TRS to say which rides better.


That's whats funny about the lib/gnu boards. If you look at the specs of the TRS, RC, T.rice, attack banana, they all look very similar there is barely any difference in the numbers. But if you read the reviews it's like they are all completely different boards for completely different riding styles.


----------



## ylnad123 (Jan 2, 2010)

I do like the graphics better on the riders choice than the TRS and could be fun to try out the pickle. Hmm...another hard choice.


----------



## turbospartan (Oct 27, 2010)

This is a good thread... it'd be good to get some "table shots" of a bunch of different boards to see what the differences are. 

Attack Banana, some Never Summer boards, etc.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

Here is a 08 TRS with just btx no c2. I ended up putting the 2012 trs with c2 next to the 08 without c2 and they look exactly the same to me.


----------



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

djsaad1 said:


> Here is a 08 TRS with just btx no c2. I ended up putting the 2012 trs with c2 next to the 08 without c2 and they look exactly the same to me.


Yeah I noticed that years ago, I have the same board (trs) size 154 but it definitely doesn't have as much camber as my 157 Rice, also it doesn't have the slight edge to edge rocker that the Rice has.


----------



## skip11 (Jan 28, 2010)

here's my 2011 T.Rice. Sits pretty much flat with the bindings on.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

you see this is what I don't like about libs marketing. They advertise both the t.rice and trs as c2 power banana but it seems obvious that the t.rice has less rocker than the trs.

Why are they so against explaining in detail the differences of their boards.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

The problem may be that there is a margin for difference in every board made, even if the boards are made using the same press and materials there may be differentiation between every one. I don't think it would be a big difference like we are seeing but i think if you 10 different c2 boards and compared them they would all be very very similar


----------



## skip11 (Jan 28, 2010)

Also to note, mine has 25 days on it.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

Anyone have a picture of a t.rice before it was c2? Wondering how much rocker was on that.


----------



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

According to the lib rep I talked to a while ago, ALL banana T.Rices were C2... before that, just good old traditional camber.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

danm said:


> According to the lib rep I talked to a while ago, ALL banana T.Rices were C2... before that, just good old traditional camber.


It was called t.rice btx in 2009. Which makes me think the trs was c2 this whole time as well. It was just a more mellow version than the t.rice, and it seems like it still is a more mellow c2 than the t.rice.


----------



## crazyface (Mar 1, 2008)

djsaad1 said:


> It was called t.rice btx in 2009. Which makes me think the trs was c2 this whole time as well. It was just a more mellow version than the t.rice, and it seems like it still is a more mellow c2 than the t.rice.


TRSes used to be just BTX on the smaller models and slight C2 on the larger models. Kinda like the Banana Magic which is labeled as BTX, but really has some camber in the tips.


----------



## djsaad1 (Nov 7, 2008)

crazyface said:


> TRSes used to be just BTX on the smaller models and slight C2 on the larger models. Kinda like the Banana Magic which is labeled as BTX, but really has some camber in the tips.


Learn something new about Lib boards every day, I had no clue that there was a difference between the larger and smaller models.


----------



## skip11 (Jan 28, 2010)

There was an interview with Mike Olsen saying that Lib has been basically putting slight camber in all their banana boards before C2 was out.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Yeah it's funny, my 2010 skunk ape when I bought it was told it was btx but I thought it looked wavy when I had it so it actually may have been slightly cambered under foot, I do know it was waaaay more rockered than my RC is, as shown the RC is almost flat


----------

