# Lib Tech T.Rice Pro 161.5 or 164.5



## NWBoarder (Jan 10, 2010)

At 260, you might want to size up to the 164.5 unless you're looking for a softer ride. I'm 6'3" and about 190 and I would take the 161.5, but I like slightly smaller decks.


----------



## BruceWard (Dec 8, 2010)

You may want to reconsider that model setup all together and get the skunk ape which would be more suited to your dimensions - I have it in 169 and while it seems big its crazy stable with grip and playable - not as stiff as my K2 Slayblade at 166 but feels really stable at speed and on ice. Supposedly it is good for powder. I definitely would like to have the T Rice Board though - it's just that I thought the Skunk Apes were designed for bigger riders. I am 6'2 180 size 12. Anyway, good luck.


----------



## BruceWard (Dec 8, 2010)

*Short is fun*



BruceWard said:


> You may want to reconsider that model setup all together and get the skunk ape which would be more suited to your dimensions - I have it in 169 and while it seems big its crazy stable with grip and playable - not as stiff as my K2 Slayblade at 166 but feels really stable at speed and on ice. Supposedly it is good for powder. I definitely would like to have the T Rice Board though - it's just that I thought the Skunk Apes were designed for bigger riders. I am 6'2 180 size 12. Anyway, good luck.


haha - I see the other guy's quote and he is also right - I have a 160 that I've taken out more than I expected but I still ride for speed and favor the longer boards. Probably all depends on if you are doing tricks and want that softer touch as he was saying.


----------



## StuckInOhio5-3 (Feb 9, 2012)

BruceWard said:


> haha - I see the other guy's quote and he is also right - I have a 160 that I've taken out more than I expected but I still ride for speed and favor the longer boards. Probably all depends on if you are doing tricks and want that softer touch as he was saying.


I am leaning towards the 161.5 because I still want it to be playable but I just don't want it washout on me


----------



## yojik (Sep 14, 2011)

I think you'll be better off with the 164.5. At 260, 162 is the smallest deck I ride these days.

FWIW, I'm 240 and 6'3 with a size 13 boot.


----------



## NWBoarder (Jan 10, 2010)

I forgot to mention that I wear size 13 as well. I don't think you'll have a washout issue except for in extreme conditions. The magnetraction should help with that. I think the 161.5 would be like a park deck for you that is capable across the mountain and in powder, and the 164.5 would be a slightly stiffer all mountain freestyle.


----------



## schmitty34 (Dec 28, 2007)

What are you planning on using it for most often? Are you hitting powder with this board? If so, I'd strongly encourage the 164 or a bigger board all together. 

I'm 6'4'' 210 riding the 161.5 and it's a good size, but I wouldn't want to go smaller for all mountain and powder. With an additional 50 pounds, I think a little biggerr board would help.

If you are just cruzing and doing freestyle with very little steeps and powder, the 161 could still be fine.


----------



## StuckInOhio5-3 (Feb 9, 2012)

schmitty34 said:


> What are you planning on using it for most often? Are you hitting powder with this board? If so, I'd strongly encourage the 164 or a bigger board all together.
> 
> I'm 6'4'' 210 riding the 161.5 and it's a good size, but I wouldn't want to go smaller for all mountain and powder. With an additional 50 pounds, I think a little biggerr board would help.
> 
> If you are just cruzing and doing freestyle with very little steeps and powder, the 161 could still be fine.


I ride on the East Coast so it is mainly groomers, no powder. I was thinking the 161 might be fine for just riding groomed runs and some park


----------



## schmitty34 (Dec 28, 2007)

StuckInOhio5-3 said:


> I ride on the East Coast so it is mainly groomers, no powder. I was thinking the 161 might be fine for just riding groomed runs and some park


Yes, that should be fine. Although, it will feel more like a park board than the all mountain shredder that it's made to be, but that sounds like what you are looking for.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

Go for the 164 bro! I'm 6'3" and weigh 180 and I ride the 161.5... Love it, but if I was 80 lbs heavier... I would definitely want the larger deck... 164.5 absolutely.


----------



## BruceWard (Dec 8, 2010)

First board I had was a 163 SIMS Absolute and it was fine - I dropped to 160 from there and only started going back up the cm's due to speed and stability for downhill. 164.5 would be a good size for all around range.


----------



## StuckInOhio5-3 (Feb 9, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Go for the 164 bro! I'm 6'3" and weigh 180 and I ride the 161.5... Love it, but if I was 80 lbs heavier... I would definitely want the larger deck... 164.5 absolutely.


Thanks for your input! I have been looking online and can find the 164 for a pretty good price. I ride a 163 right now and don't have much problem fooling around in the park. I think the 164 might work a little better for the conditions I ride in. A bit more stable at high speed.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

StuckInOhio5-3 said:


> Thanks for your input! I have been looking online and can find the 164 for a pretty good price. I ride a 163 right now and don't have much problem fooling around in the park. I think the 164 might work a little better for the conditions I ride in. A bit more stable at high speed.


I don't jib with mine, but definitely take it off big jumps, in the pipe and in the trees. Even at 180 lbs and my moderate ability, I can throw the 161 around pretty easily. It is the HP model, but I've played with both versions and think that the HP doesn't make a good deal of weight difference. Although I was messing with the 157s when I was comparing weight, so I'm assuming at 164.5 the basalt would take even more weight off. And being that it is a nice board you will probably keep for a few seasons, if we ever get consistent snow out east, you will want the extra float the 164.5 has to offer.

I am surprised that with the magnatraction tech Lib, Gnu and Roxy offer, you don't see more of their boards on the east coast.


----------



## dice (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm 185 6'2 boots 11.5 and ride 164.5 because I like to ride all mountain. I can throw it down in the glades and the park easily at my size. Sometimes I ponder if I should've gotten a 161 but at the speed I like to go at vs the amount I hot the park, 164.5 is the perfect fit for me. Hope this helps as reference. At your specs, I would strongly recommend a 164.5 unless you do 70% park and even then... I'm not sure 161 is the best fit.

GL

Cheers...


----------



## Rider161 (Oct 12, 2011)

I actually saw a lot of them this year up at Snowshoe


----------

