# Lib Tech T. Rice size



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

I'd go with the 157. It's plenty stable, has great dampening (up there with Ride and a tad under NS), and from a swing weight perspective, the blunted tips help there. I have ridden a lot of boards, and it's honestly my favorite board. You can charge the heck out of it, but still have that freestyle side to the board.

I weigh 174 and am 5'11 for reference. It's perfect for me.


----------



## jbernste03 (Aug 20, 2012)

*i just got the t.rice pro HPq*

I just got the t.rice pro HP. Website messed up on price so I got it for the Non-HP price. I am 5'8 180, size 9.5 boot.. i got the 153 because Lib reps reccomended sizing down 3cm from what you normally ride if you are coming from a camber board. i rode a burton custom 156 before. To tell you the truth, in terms of length of the board, it seems like the 153 is very very close to the length of my old 156.. both come to right above my chin. I dont know if this rant is helping you at all but just my 2 cents. some companies measure length from tip to tip along the board and some are straight line end to end. my guess thats why my two boards seem to fall in the exact place when lining it up to me even though they are different sizes


----------



## kaka (Aug 28, 2012)

I should have mentioned that my last board was the TRS (BTX version, not the C2 version) and I love it for freestlye, but I do find it a bit soft at high speed. It's a 157cm, love the float in pow, but stability is the main issue I have with it. So if I get the 157 T. Rice, I'm worried that it be the same because the length would be the same. 

the TRS was a 6 on Lib's flex scale and the T. Rice is a 7, but does the fact that it has the C2 tech make it noticably more solid than the TRS pre-C2 version?


----------



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

I can help you with that one. The TRS feels like a noodle compared with the T Rice. Demoed it last year, as well as the Attack Banana, and it goes: 

TRS - Attack Banana - T Rice.

I hate Lib's flex ratings, because if the TRS is a 6, the Rice should be a 9. Very stable board. 

In reality, I call the Rice a stiff flexing board, and the TRS is a mid / soft flexing board. Actually felt the Smokin Superpark was more stable board.


----------



## jbernste03 (Aug 20, 2012)

Do you guys know the weight ranges for the 153 or 157? I got the 153 and I'm alil concerned with it washing out when I'm movin. The 153 is perfect for my height which is 5'7 but after 6 years of college and a desk job I know have put on some pounds on I'm up to 180. I still have the oppurtunity to switch out the board for the bigger size.


----------



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm 174, and I have a 57. Perfect for going double black, and still fun to play around with on kickers. Not really a park board. If you sized down to a 53, it's going to lose it's stability for sure.


----------



## jbernste03 (Aug 20, 2012)

*size?*



Nolefan2011 said:


> I'm 174, and I have a 57. Perfect for going double black, and still fun to play around with on kickers. Not really a park board. If you sized down to a 53, it's going to lose it's stability for sure.


I'm just afraid the 157 will be too long for me. I'm only 5'7". The 153 comes in between my chin and nose right now when compared to my height.


----------



## mjd (Mar 13, 2009)

go with the 157 if you're not sure.


----------



## kctahoe (Nov 14, 2010)

jbernste03 said:


> I'm just afraid the 157 will be too long for me. I'm only 5'7". The 153 comes in between my chin and nose right now when compared to my height.


Dont size your board based on your height, at 180 i would have went with the 157 personally.


----------



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

Only way I'd ever size that down to a 53, is if I was going to use it in the park. But even then, I'd go softer on the board so it wouldn't matter. 

Get the 57


----------

