# Your opinion on: BTX vs. C2 vs. EC2 ?



## KayZ (Jan 19, 2014)

How do you feel about a complete banana vs a eliptical camber underfoot rocker inbetween banana?

My first board ever was a park pickle (which is camber underfoot rocker inbetween, so a C2 or EC2 so to speak) and i did very well to learn on it. No edges were caught, i never felt squirrely bombing blues and blacks, and at the same time I learned to hit 20 foot kickers on this thing. 

To me it still is my "do it all in one day" go to board.

Is there any reason to ever go full on banana?

I recently bought my G/F a full banana Roxy ally so she has an easier time learning. However I still believe an EC2BTX board would do her even better, with more stability of a carve that camber provides, while still allowing a forgiving catch free ride. Had i found an EC2 in my price range I would have snatched it up for her without a doubt.

What are your experiences/ feelings about C2 and EC2 for noobs? for advanced riders?


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

I think I can't even come close to keeping up with all the dumbass little names Mervyn uses to describe different camber profiles.


----------



## KayZ (Jan 19, 2014)

linvillegorge said:


> I think I can't even come close to keeping up with all the dumbass little names Mervyn uses to describe different camber profiles.


:storm:

They're pretty straightforward...?

btx for... banana 

c2 btx for... 2 camber sections on a banana (shocking i know)

ec2 btx for... 2 elliptical camber sections on a banana (even more unexpected given the abbreviation) 

:facepalm3:


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

I see the merit in Camber and Rocker, and even RCR bein just a reduced Camber along the effective edge of the board!!!!!

But CRC????? Maybe in pow, cause that's the only time I liked it!!!!!

But, as an all round, does it all, be all to end all, quiver killin profile, I hated it!!!!! 

* My personal opinion!!!!!


----------



## tdn (Dec 30, 2010)

CRC is the only rocker shape I could keep in my quiver that would get regular use. I've had fun on completely rockered boards but overall they're too squirrely for me. CRC is plenty loose/playful enough for me. To each their own.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

KayZ said:


> How do you feel about a complete banana vs a eliptical camber underfoot rocker inbetween banana?
> 
> My first board ever was a park pickle (which is camber underfoot rocker inbetween, so a C2 or EC2 so to speak) and i did very well to learn on it. No edges were caught, i never felt squirrely bombing blues and blacks, and at the same time I learned to hit 20 foot kickers on this thing.
> 
> ...


Hi KayZ,

The Park Pickle is BTX (full on Banana). It is not C2 or EC2. Gnu mentions that BTX has "flat to mild" cambers outside of the center rocker but this is effectively a full rocker design and within Gnu it represents their full rocker rocker/banana profile .


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

linvillegorge said:


> I think I can't even come close to keeping up with all the dumbass little names Mervyn uses to describe different camber profiles.


Agreed.
I like that Mervin offers several variations of camber profiles, but remembering which is which can be a headache.

Go ahead, describe each one without referring to their websites:

BTX
C2
EC2
XC2
C3
DC3
TT
!BTX!

I thought I knew them all, but I missed two of them.


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

tdn said:


> CRC is the only rocker shape I could keep in my quiver that would get regular use. I've had fun on completely rockered boards but overall they're too squirrely for me. CRC is plenty loose/playful enough for me. To each their own.


+1.
Fully rockered boards are too unstable for me as well.

Kayz, for a noob I would recommend EC2 (Lib Attack Banana or GNU Space Case) - more stable than BTX but still very playful/easy to turn.

For advanced riders, depends on what type of riding you do, but I really like the new(er) XC2 profile (Lib TRS, GNU Torpedo). Very stable yet still quite playful.
For more aggressive riding, C3.


----------



## SnowDogWax (Nov 8, 2013)

Some boarders have the skill to take any board and shred lights out. 
Me..... different boards have helped me in my progression as snowboarder. 
This forum with the crc, rcr, btx, ec2, c1, c2, and I'll raise you two cents discussion's is another piece of my snowboarding puzzle.


----------



## BigMountains (Sep 20, 2012)

Thoughts on Lib Tech TRS vs Capita DOA for intermediate progression? Basically RCR vs CRC. Haven't ridden either, difficult to judge.


----------



## BFBF (Jan 15, 2012)

I have a c2 Bg and and an Xc2 trs.

IMO the jump in aggressiveness/stability from c2 to xc2 is very pronounced. XC2 is better in every way on hardback/groomers.

With that being said, the TRS is medium stiff with amazing edge hold = a solid choice for riders of all ability levels


----------



## augie (Mar 14, 2012)

Related question, currently riding a 2010 NS sl-r, which one of these would be most equivalent to it? The ec2?


----------



## SnowDogWax (Nov 8, 2013)

*25% BuySnow*

Flash Sale 1 Day Only! Monday, November 10th 

USE PROMO CODE: PREFLASH

***Excludes 2015 Snow & Wake Products****

Just click on snow then sale items, they still have a good selection of 2014 gear.


----------



## Fewdfreak (May 13, 2013)

Love my Bpro C2 for a "quiver killer" as it does well on groomers/freestyling and surprised the hell out of in pow. Definately prefer the C3 or a legit cambered board for hard pack, bombing, and for pop but there is a trade off in the deep... Did have a squirreling curve so to speak on the C2 but not horrible. Not a fan if full rockers tho, ride slow to me/do not like not having that extra boing! from a cambered section.


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

Fewdfreak said:


> Love my Bpro C2 for a "quiver killer" as it does well on groomers/freestyling and surprised the hell out of in pow. Definately prefer the C3 or a legit cambered board for hard pack, bombing, and for pop but there is a trade off in the deep... Did have a squirreling curve so to speak on the C2 but not horrible. Not a fan if full rockers tho, ride slow to me/do not like not having that extra boing! from a cambered section.


If you get a chance, demo the TRS (Narrows) to compare to your BPro.
I think you'll like the change from C2 to XC2, just as I did when I went from my 2013 TRS (C2) to my 2014 TRS HP (XC2).
More stable, but still playful.


----------



## BigMountains (Sep 20, 2012)

Could someone provide a comparison in their experience riding XC2 BTX and a RCR profile such as in Capita DOA? Trying to get an idea which might be better for intermediate all mtn progression. Hopefully not too much off topic here...


----------



## BFBF (Jan 15, 2012)

GreyDragon said:


> If you get a chance, demo the TRS (Narrows) to compare to your BPro.
> I think you'll like the change from C2 to XC2, just as I did when I went from my 2013 TRS (C2) to my 2014 TRS HP (XC2).
> More stable, but still playful.


this x1000:jumping1:


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

BigMountains said:


> Could someone provide a comparison in their experience riding XC2 BTX and a RCR profile such as in Capita DOA? Trying to get an idea which might be better for intermediate all mtn progression. Hopefully not too much off topic here...


Best I can give you is...
I had a Yes Great Beauties board when it came out a few years ago.
RCR profile.
Rave reviews.
Did nothing for me.

I came from full camber and rocker/flat/rocker boards before this.

Then I took a chance and bought a Lib Tech Banana Magic - CRC profile.
Well, I found MY board!

I have only ridden CRC boards ever since.
They are varying degrees of less stability versus cambered or RCR boards, but they are much more playful and, well, FUN!

If you are a charger kind of rider, or demand a VERY stable ride, I think you stick with camber or RCR profiles.
If you like to have an easier to maneuver board, CRC does it.

Note that the new XC2 profile from Mervin is quite a stable ride.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

GreyDragon said:


> Agreed.
> I like that Mervin offers several variations of camber profiles, but remembering which is which can be a headache.
> 
> Go ahead, describe each one without referring to their websites:
> ...



OOH I'LL PLAY!
BTX. Full rocker.
C2. Their standard and original Rocker/Camber
EC2. Same rocker zone. The camber zones are ellipses making the zone near the contact point more level.
XC2. Same level of the camber zone with a shorter Banana. This puts the apex of the camber right under the reference stance.
C3. Add a little banana dip but keep it full camber.
DC3. Take that camber dip and move it back to match up with the setback stance.
TT. Flat between camber outside.
!BTX!. MORE ROCKER, less camber.
C1. Take C2 and remove the front camber zone.
P. Add that to anything and it makes it Asym. There are various levels of asym.

I think that's all of them?

Ride diffences? The only profiles they need are TT, XC2, C1, EC2, and DTT(which they don't make, but should). And they should redesign P cause it's backwards. EC2 and BTX feel too similar. Kill one. And if you go with EC2 kill C2 cause those are too similar. XC2 has a genuinely different feel cause you stand right on top of the camber, keep it. C3 is meh, TT is better. C1 makes total sense for the style of boards it's on, and DTT would just replace DC3 since I'm killing C3. P is just wrong. Noone has trouble initiating a heelside turn. That is not where the lack of mechanical advantage has an effect. It's our ability to hold on to that heelside and really drive it through a turn. Now, when I want to turn super hard, I don't go and find a softer board, I find a stiffer one. So why would I soften up the heelside of a board to make it so I can turn harder on it? Also, to be completely honest, I don't want different sidecuts. I just want to be able to get into the one on my heels with more power. From an engineering standpoint and from all my experience (I've ridden the Pickle, Impossible, Greats, Parkitect, Pyro, and my own) Burton is doing it best. Don't change the sidecut, just profile the core so it matches up with a duck stance. Gives more board meat right behind your heel. Super lazy no motion turns feel the same, they don't on asym sidecuts, but when you drive hard you have more leverage.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

GreyDragon said:


> Best I can give you is...
> I had a Yes Great Beauties board when it came out a few years ago.
> RCR profile.
> Rave reviews.
> Did nothing for me.


I'm not saying you are wrong for liking RC more than Camrock, but if the Beauties is the only camrock you've ridden I would urge you try it again. That point was when Yes was kinda poopy. The transition between the camber and rocker was basically directly under foot. So you got some of the benefits of the rocker, none of the real drawbacks of camber, but none of the real benefits of camber either. They have since lengthened the camber zone and they all ride very much more betterz.


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

Nivek said:


> OOH I'LL PLAY!
> BTX. Full rocker.
> C2. Their standard and original Rocker/Camber
> EC2. Same rocker zone. The camber zones are ellipses making the zone near the contact point more level.
> ...


Geez, that was a good analysis sir! :notworthy:

And I can't believe I still missed two of the Mervin profiles!


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

WTF, YOLO, so get some BTX with a Bit of P, and LOL till ya PYT wants a BLT in turn for a BJ!!!!!


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

mizu kuma said:


> *wtf*, *yolo*, so get some btx with a bit of p, and *lol* till ya *pyt* wants a *blt* in turn for a *bj*!!!!!


where did you get the 2016 mervin catalog?!?!?!?! You aren't supposed to know their new shapes yet!!!!


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

Nivek said:


> where did you get the 2016 mervin catalog?!?!?!?! You aren't supposed to know their new shapes yet!!!!


:rofl3::rofl3::rofl3::rofl3::rofl3:


----------



## KayZ (Jan 19, 2014)

I forgot to check back on this thread, and now that I did 

You guys sure keep it entertaining up in here

:10: :10: :10: :10: :10:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

linvillegorge said:


> I think I can't even come close to keeping up with all the dumbass little names ervyn uses to describe different camber profiles.


+1



GreyDragon said:


> Agreed.
> I like that Mervin offers several variations of camber profiles, but remembering which is which can be a headache.
> 
> Go ahead, describe each one without referring to their websites:


I'll play 
BTX no clue. A boarTercross board? 
C2 no clue
EC2 hmmm... no clue
XC2 no clue
C3 no clue^3
DC3 sounds interesting. ... no clue
TT collaboration with Audi? 

Conclusion? Don't have such a board and probably never will... enough options out there using familiar terms :dunno:


----------



## Fewdfreak (May 13, 2013)

BFBF said:


> this x1000:jumping1:


I looked at the TRS narrows when I got my BPro, at the time it was just the C2 profile and the two seemed similar except for the sintered base on the Gnu. How does XC2 compare to C3? Mervs got that new ladies Torah Bright model in XC2 as well. Not that I even need a new stick but I am always looking at how stuff might ride LOL...


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

:facepalm3: Mervyn nooooooooo 

One slight drawback from RCR is pure carving performance (which depends a bit on tip/tail stiffness and effective edge).... you do lose a bit of effective edge and if you couple that with a softer nose it's a bit trickier to always count on your nose edge. You can easily solve it with a stiffer or longer board. Or better snow 

CRC does have it's place. That little feeling of floatiness is not bad for playful riding, but i find the stability from RCR more than makes up for that; because in the end RCR still floats very well, just not as much as CRC.

I do want to try a few Neversummer CRCs though, their dampness certainly helps with stability without having to go too stiff, so you can get a nice floaty board that still can carve and feel stable.

As far as Mervyn.... no. I don't want to follow their cryptic names. No.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

neni said:


> BTX no clue. A boarTercross board?


That would just be so sad to watch.


----------



## Ravaging Rami (Mar 11, 2014)

Why is everyone on here so against LIB? I didn't really find their profiles that confusing. They do have pictures on their website showing all of the different profiles. Their boards ride well for what they are designed for, so what gives? I wouldn't take a BTX profile and try to boarder cross race with it. I don't have a death wish...


----------



## KayZ (Jan 19, 2014)

Ravaging Rami said:


> Why is everyone on here so against LIB? I didn't really find their profiles that confusing. They do have pictures on their website showing all of the different profiles. Their boards ride well for what they are designed for, so what gives? I wouldn't take a BTX profile and try to boarder cross race with it. I don't have a death wish...




I wouldn't say anyone is against lib, more like poking fun of them coming up with new terminology for already existing board profiles.

Lib/GNU (mervin) make great boards and I swear by them. Whoever disagrees either never got to ride one or can't make good use of the features it offers :finger1:


----------



## Ravaging Rami (Mar 11, 2014)

KayZ said:


> I wouldn't say anyone is against lib, more like poking fun of them coming up with new terminology for already existing board profiles.
> 
> Lib/GNU (mervin) make great boards and I swear by them. Whoever disagrees either never got to ride one or can't make good use of the features it offers :finger1:


Exactly! I could see how some may not understand the terminology, but they make awesome boards! I will admit they are pricey, but you pay for the extra quality they put into them. Is CRC for everyone? No, but you also wouldn't try to use a smart car for deep truck mudding/racing. That's way out of it's element!


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

Nivek said:


> OOH I'LL PLAY!
> XC2 has a genuinely different feel cause you stand right on top of the camber, keep it.


How does the feel of XC2 change if you are just inside of the ref stance? And if you're just outside the ref stance?


----------



## freshy (Nov 18, 2009)

Lib has always had creative names for their tech. If you don't like to use your imagination or would rather have tech names an accountant could understand then I kind of feel sorry for you.

I went over to Never Summers website to see if Lib is the only one with confusing names to people but RC, CR, EXRC, EXTRC are not exactly intuitive either. It's obvious that RC is rockcam and CR is camrock but I was surprised to learn they are all CRC with some variations, and they only have the 4 profiles.


----------



## freshy (Nov 18, 2009)

Nivek said:


> ... and DTT would just replace DC3 since I'm killing C3. ...


Noooo don't kill my beloved C3 you can kill all the other buttery park boards for all I care. Love my C3 Darker, super hard charger and handles deeps with ease. For my riding style it's a perfect fit.


----------

