# Travis Rice not on reverse camber?



## baldy

i also heard he doesn't ride mtx and loves burton triads. seriously


----------



## scottland

He rides Burton cartels (has for years). But i've also heard that the he doesn't ride reverse camber much other than his Banana Hammock.


----------



## jmacphee9

travis was the first person to win a competition on one is the rumor though, but no his main boards are not BTX. at least from what i have heard. you can clearly see his binding of choice on thats it thats all, for everyone raggin on burton bindings there are a shit-ton of pros wearing them without getting paid.


----------



## Zee

I think you are right, he does ride Burton Cartels.




























I always thought he rode Bent Metals, Burton is not one of his sponsors.


----------



## jmacphee9

he also wears a UA hood! lol never noticed that but they are the biz.


----------



## dcoppa

travis rice does whatever he wants. burton might not be one of his sponsors but he doesnt even care. in Thats it Thats All he is wearing the brown burton cartels. and he was one of the first if not the first pro to win a major contest on a reverse camber board.


----------



## jmacphee9

dcoppa said:


> travis rice does whatever he wants. burton might not be one of his sponsors but he doesnt even care. in Thats it Thats All he is wearing the brown burton cartels. and he was one of the first if not the first pro to win a major contest on a reverse camber board.


almost exactly what i said daniel:cheeky4:


----------



## VenomousSVT

cartels are great bindings IMHO.. i was going to get a set until i got a great deal on my GNU Fastec's. I will most likely put cartels on my Scaremaster though


----------



## jmacphee9

how are those fastecs? pretty interesting, never seen em in person though.


----------



## VenomousSVT

jmacphee9 said:


> how are those fastecs? pretty interesting, never seen em in person though.


actually i LOVE them they feel great and work a ton better than the cinch's and the flows! I hated flows, and even though I do like the cinch, the mechanism on the cinch is primitive compared to the fastec. They got the folding back from flow then built a better binding around it!


----------



## Guest

*hmm*

Doesnt it seem that Lib claims pretty hard that he rides all reverse camber decks, that's what seems messed up


----------



## Zee

Travis Rice is not riding much park, I don't think Reverse Camber is suited for a lot of the terrain he rides.


----------



## arsenic0

Hes probably not riding exclusively rocker because Lib's banana tech is more parky..now that they are moving to the new C2 double rocker like NS im sure that he'll be riding some more seriously.


----------



## Guest

Kinda off topic, but: I ride an '09 T.Rice with '08 Cartels and I have to say that this setup is by far the best setup I've ridden for all-mountain freestyle....BIG all-mountain freestyle.


----------



## legallyillegal

I believe this is how it goes:

07/08: Banana for everything except comps and stuff like that (i.e. big air)
08/09: 2010 C2 full time with 09 graphics


----------



## VenomousSVT

kaiserolls said:


> Doesnt it seem that Lib claims pretty hard that he rides all reverse camber decks, that's what seems messed up


Why does it seem that way? I can't of one time I have ever heard LIB say "travis rice, the BTX only rider for LIB Technologies"


----------



## Guest

VenomousSVT said:


> Why does it seem that way? I can't of one time I have ever heard LIB say "travis rice, the BTX only rider for LIB Technologies"



Queen City represent!! I'm movin back in three months and lookin to hook up with some riders. We'll have to keep in touch.

GO PANTHERS!!!


Sorry for the thread jacking


----------



## Nivek

T.Rice is so good that he could ride a a BoxScratcher on 100footers...ha.

Does it really matter if he really rides BTX or not? Its not like its going to tell you anything about BTX. If he's not using it, its because he doing stuff to gnarly for the free feeling of the rocker. If its that gnarly its to crazy for any of us to do so we need not worry.


----------



## Guest

Nivek said:


> Does it really matter if he really rides BTX or not? Its not like its going to tell you anything about BTX.


Word. It probably doesn't make a huge difference to these guys no matter what they're riding. Look at Mikey Leblanc - he's better on a toboggan than any of us are on a snowboard :laugh:!


----------



## Music Moves

Twix said:


> Queen City represent!! I'm movin back in three months and lookin to hook up with some riders. We'll have to keep in touch.
> 
> GO PANTHERS!!!
> 
> 
> Sorry for the thread jacking


Sorry for the thread jacking too, but I'm also in Charlotte and I know venomousSVT, so we'll definitely ride!


----------



## Guest

Music Moves said:


> Sorry for the thread jacking too, but I'm also in Charlotte and I know venomousSVT, so we'll definitely ride!


Sounds good. I'll shoot you a private message about the NC snowboarding scene.

OK, back to the original topic. Sorry


----------



## Guest

*update?*

I just watched the new absinithe movie "neverland" with T.Rice in it and it seems like he's riding the c2 BTX version of his board just from the way it sits in the snow. You know how reverse camber boards seem to have the tail sunk in more than normal camber boards.

Also about the no-pop issue with BTX, does that even matter for him with the jumps he's hitting? It doesn't seem like pop would be a good idea when you are hitting those huge jumps that would take a few days to construct.


----------



## bakesale

mellenger said:


> I just watched the new absinithe movie "neverland" with T.Rice in it and it seems like he's riding the c2 BTX version of his board just from the way it sits in the snow. You know how reverse camber boards seem to have the tail sunk in more than normal camber boards.
> 
> Also about the no-pop issue with BTX, does that even matter for him with the jumps he's hitting? It doesn't seem like pop would be a good idea when you are hitting those huge jumps that would take a few days to construct.


a board with a lot of pop is better for jibs than what T.Rice does. You're right, when hucking yourself off of those giant cheese wedges you really shouldn't be ollieing your board


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

ollies and pop are 2 different things, you would never went to ollie off a jump anyway. 

when you pop its more about jumping with both feet at the same time like you would if you were taking a jump shot in basketball. bend your knees as your approaching then right at the lip "pop" or jump up. 

im sure t-rice pops off those jumps to be able to get the power he needs to do those tricks.


----------



## Snowjoe

paygrey said:


> I know next to nothing, but I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. Ollie is a 2 footed jump. Pop is loading the tail and using the spring of your board to 'pop' off the ground without effort... I don't think hucking is really a technical term, but its most common context usually means the cliff or jump is huge enough to huck you without the need for any pop or ollie...and I'm pretty sure this is what mr. rice is doing most of the time.


No an ollie is loading the tail, like on a skateboard, pop is 2 footed, like a little pop up.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

paygrey said:


> *I know next to nothing,* but I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. Ollie is a 2 footed jump. Pop is loading the tail and using the spring of your board to 'pop' off the ground without effort... I don't think hucking is really a technical term, but its most common context usually means the cliff or jump is huge enough to huck you without the need for any pop or ollie...and I'm pretty sure this is what mr. rice is doing a lot of the time.


and i have been coaching freestyle for 3 years.


----------



## MunkySpunk

paygrey said:


> I know next to nothing, but I'm pretty sure this is bullshit. Ollie is a 2 footed jump. Pop is loading the tail and using the spring of your board to 'pop' off the ground without effort... I don't think hucking is really a technical term, but its most common context usually means the cliff or jump is huge enough to huck you without the need for any pop or ollie...and I'm pretty sure this is what mr. rice is doing a lot of the time.


You're absolutely right, and I agree 100%.

You know next to nothing.


----------



## Snowjoe

paygrey said:


> That doesn't make sense. Why is 'pop' a characteristic attributed to the springiness/stiffness of a snowboard when the act of 'popping' with 2 feet (as you describe it) is solely reliant on leg strength and independent of the board's 'pop'? If anything, they're exactly the same and jumping with 2 feet is just that...no cute nickname. It's not clear to use 'pop' as an attribute of the board that you experience during an ollie...and then to turn around and say that 'popping' is a 2 footed activity that doesn't even make use of the board's 'poppiness'.
> 
> I know full well what a skate ollie is, but I've seen it discussed on some forum or other that the term has morphed for double-foot jumps in snowboarding because pop is the common term for loading the tail.


Pop used as the term for a two footed jump has a different meaning to the pop of loading the tail, the same word meaning two different things. Also depending on how you pressure the board through the two footed take off you are actually using some of the pop of the board. Either way ask pretty much anyone loading the back of the board is an ollie, and a 2 footed take off is really never called an ollie


----------



## ifresh21

That's interesting I didn't know 2 feet involved the boards flex. Interesting


----------



## Snowjoe

ifresh21 said:


> That's interesting I didn't know 2 feet involved the boards flex. Interesting


It can, you know when you see people carve into a spin? Not only does it start some momentum before the jump but it flexes the board which pops back to it's original shape as you release and give you a bit of lift off of the lip.


----------



## Snowjoe

paygrey said:


> Yea...I'm with you on the 2-footed not being called an ollie. Serious lapse on my part. Apologies. I still contend that pop shouldn't be used to represent totally disparate activities. It means one thing.


It's all good, I agree it can be confusing, you kinda get used to it when you spend every day immersed in it working at the hill so it becomes second nature, these sports can be full of words that make people at first think WTF is going on here? :laugh:


----------



## ifresh21

Snowjoe said:


> It can, you know when you see people carve into a spin? Not only does it start some momentum before the jump but it flexes the board which pops back to it's original shape as you release and give you a bit of lift off of the lip.



Cool I gotta try that more


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

paygrey said:


> Yea...I'm with you on the 2-footed not being called an ollie. Serious lapse on my part. Apologies. I still contend that pop shouldn't be used to represent totally disparate activities. It means one thing.


people throw the word "pop" around ALOT so i can understand how it can get confusing. when you bend your knees as you approach the jump like i explained earlier what the does is push down on the camber, so when you jump up, while some of it is leg strength, the rest is the board "popping" back to its orginal state.

you can argue as much as you want but ive been doing this for a while now and this isnt just stuff i made up, it is a collective amount of information that i learned over the years from personal experience and MANY top rate freestyle coaches.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

paygrey said:


> Agree... My beef was with 'pop' being described as a leg-only activity...like a basketball jumpshot. That's garbage to me.


i simply use that as a way to understand the body mechanics behind the pop. i never said it was a leg only activity, what i did say is you wanna bend your knees and pop at the lip LIKE you might do in a jump shot.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

paygrey said:


> Yea...I'm with you on the 2-footed not being called an ollie. Serious lapse on my part. Apologies. I still contend that pop shouldn't be used to represent totally disparate activities. * It means one thing*.


do all the words in the dictionary have only one meaning? a word can be used to explain more than just one thing.


----------



## alex is w0rd

i met him at redbull snowscrapers in NYC and actually held the board he was riding in my hands. 
its a 2010 Libtech Trice with the C2. (camber)(banana)(camber)
and he rode the burton cartels from likr 08 i think. the black and blue mismatch ones.


----------



## Method

I'm pretty sure d-kass was the first person to win a comp on reverse camber actually, and theirs an interview somewhere that states t.rice doesn't ride banana during filming or comps.


----------



## Guest

Quote from Transworld interview:

"...I’ve had a lot more time to work on some new board stuff that’s coming up with Lib Tech. That’s been one of my biggest projects - this new stuff called C2, which my board line is primarily offered in next year. I’ve been riding and testing different variations all winter and it really and truly is the new technology like what Banana was to camber. It’s a refined technology; it’s kind of a combination of Banana and camber together. It still has all the benefits of riding Banana but solves all of the problems that I wasn’t content with on Banana. Banana is the funnest board to ride but *I don’t film or compete on it*. This new C2 is the end all - the fix on the indecision between Banana and camber."


----------



## legallyillegal

new technology haha like when inca did it in the 90s and the current NS RC ripoff


----------



## arsenic0

legallyillegal said:


> new technology haha like when inca did it in the 90s and the current NS RC ripoff


Heretic! We shall burn you at the stake!
Did you not see their sweet best tech of 2010 award?!
Its gold...and if kindergarten taught me anything its that gold stars are good.


----------



## Guest

legallyillegal said:


> new technology haha like when inca did it in the 90s and the current NS RC ripoff


Wah wah wah, everybody rips off everybody... chicken or the egg?


----------



## Leo

legallyillegal said:


> new technology haha like when inca did it in the 90s and the current NS RC ripoff


If you want to talk like that, then every single snowboard out there is a rip-off of ski technology. Let's not forget that reverse camber came from skis. Shane McConkey anyone? Volant Spatula what? :dunno:


----------



## freshy

And skis are a rip off of toboggans, who ripped off logs.


----------



## Guest

Leo said:


> If you want to talk like that, then every single snowboard out there is a rip-off of ski technology. Let's not forget that reverse camber came from skis. Shane McConkey anyone? Volant Spatula what? :dunno:


the problem here isn't just when tech came out, but that LibTech has a habit of claiming they have the newest and best tech when they couldn't be further from the truth. hell, they'd probably claim to have invented snowboarding if they could get people to believe them, just like the Lib fanboys think they were the pioneers of reverse camber (laff).

fact remains that Lib's tech fell short compared to NeverSummer, who perfected it, and now Lib copies their tech and claims it as new yet again. go Lib!


----------



## linvillegorge

That's just the way marketing works, man. And I can tell you, Lib Tech's marketing is certainly working. Even here in Never Summer's backyard, Lib Techs outnumber Never Summers probably 3:1 on the slopes. I ride a Never Summer myself and mine is positive camber. I would like to try one of their rockered board though...


----------



## Guest

anyone know of any good articles on the differences in cambered/rockered boards?
i quit boarding for a few years, and now im coming back and seeing all these terms i never heard when i was younger.
ive read a little about the rocker boards on burtons website but im still a little confused


----------



## Guest

linvillegorge said:


> That's just the way marketing works, man. And I can tell you, Lib Tech's marketing is certainly working. Even here in Never Summer's backyard, Lib Techs outnumber Never Summers probably 3:1 on the slopes. I ride a Never Summer myself and mine is positive camber. I would like to try one of their rockered board though...


yeah, i know. i don't mind much about Lib themselves. i do hate the fanboys who think Lib is the end all, be all of boards when anyone on a NeverSummer RC board automatically trumps their banana.

before anyone gets butthurt, i don't think Lib boards are terrible by any means. but i'm comparing it to a NeverSummer here. let's be honest.


----------



## Leo

BurtonRider87 said:


> anyone know of any good articles on the differences in cambered/rockered boards?
> i quit boarding for a few years, and now im coming back and seeing all these terms i never heard when i was younger.
> ive read a little about the rocker boards on burtons website but im still a little confused


The Snowboard, Camber vs Rocker debate | Shoreline Snowboard and Ski Blog

Reverse Camber Snowboards: The Next Evolution of Snowboarding or Just Hype? | Suite101.com

The gist of it all? Reverse camber technology was fathered by Shane McConkey. He was a major powder junkie and wanted skis that float better on the pow. He came up with a theory that powder acts similar to water when you ride on it. Wakeboards and water skis are all reverse cambered and this is where Shane got the idea to use that technology on skis. The reason he even thought about the whole water thing was because one of his friends told him that his old bent skis seemed to float better in the pow. It made complete sense to him. Hence, reverse camber was invented for better float in the powder.

His invention was adopted by the snowboarding community. Same reasons here. Better float. Rockers are not only good for powder though. They are awesome for rails, box tops, and just pure control. Catching an edge takes extra effort with rockers.


----------



## Leo

kyouness said:


> yeah, i know. i don't mind much about Lib themselves. i do hate the fanboys who think Lib is the end all, be all of boards when anyone on a NeverSummer RC board automatically trumps their banana.
> 
> before anyone gets butthurt, i don't think Lib boards are terrible by any means. but i'm comparing it to a NeverSummer here. let's be honest.


I don't disagree with you at all, but by pushing one brand over another, you are basically doing the same thing as said "fanboys". Everyone has their preferences. There is a huge number of NeverSummer fans here too. Nobody has to agree with certain companies' marketing strategies, but there really is no need to put the consumers down. A lot of people are blind to all of the technicalities. There are equally as many people who do not want to spend time researching all of the tech that's out there so they get the boards that others recommend. No matter what though, boards are boards. Even the people who ride Lamars are still snowboarders. No need to rag on them. Hate the company, not the people that use it.


----------



## linvillegorge

Leo said:


> I don't disagree with you at all, but by pushing one brand over another, you are basically doing the same thing as said "fanboys". Everyone has their preferences. There is a huge number of NeverSummer fans here too. Nobody has to agree with certain companies' marketing strategies, but there really is no need to put the consumers down. A lot of people are blind to all of the technicalities. There are equally as many people who do not want to spend time researching all of the tech that's out there so they get the boards that others recommend. No matter what though, boards are boards. Even the people who ride Lamars are still snowboarders. No need to rag on them. Hate the company, not the people that use it.


I agree. I'm a big NS fan myself, but there are lots of other great boards out there. I don't think any board is better than any other board because of the name on it. Ultimately, my decision to go with NS came down to durability. The damn things can take a beating. If I'm going to pay premium dough for equipment, that shit better last. That's my philosophy anyway.


----------



## Guest

kyouness said:


> the problem here isn't just when tech came out, but that LibTech has a habit of claiming they have the newest and best tech when they couldn't be further from the truth. hell, they'd probably claim to have invented snowboarding if they could get people to believe them


So true, c2 btx is just their version of never summers rc. And magnetraction is just a more extreme version of burtons pressure distribution edges, which have been in production years before magnetraction.


----------



## Guest

Leo said:


> The Snowboard, Camber vs Rocker debate | Shoreline Snowboard and Ski Blog
> 
> Reverse Camber Snowboards: The Next Evolution of Snowboarding or Just Hype? | Suite101.com
> 
> The gist of it all? Reverse camber technology was fathered by Shane McConkey. He was a major powder junkie and wanted skis that float better on the pow. He came up with a theory that powder acts similar to water when you ride on it. Wakeboards and water skis are all reverse cambered and this is where Shane got the idea to use that technology on skis. The reason he even thought about the whole water thing was because one of his friends told him that his old bent skis seemed to float better in the pow. It made complete sense to him. Hence, reverse camber was invented for better float in the powder.
> 
> His invention was adopted by the snowboarding community. Same reasons here. Better float. Rockers are not only good for powder though. They are awesome for rails, box tops, and just pure control. Catching an edge takes extra effort with rockers.



i appreciate the info.....thatll give me something to read up on for the rest of the work day.
thanks


----------



## mjd

Leo said:


> The Snowboard, Camber vs Rocker debate | Shoreline Snowboard and Ski Blog
> 
> Reverse Camber Snowboards: The Next Evolution of Snowboarding or Just Hype? | Suite101.com
> 
> The gist of it all? Reverse camber technology was fathered by Shane McConkey. He was a major powder junkie and wanted skis that float better on the pow. He came up with a theory that powder acts similar to water when you ride on it. Wakeboards and water skis are all reverse cambered and this is where Shane got the idea to use that technology on skis. The reason he even thought about the whole water thing was because one of his friends told him that his old bent skis seemed to float better in the pow. It made complete sense to him. Hence, reverse camber was invented for better float in the powder.
> 
> His invention was adopted by the snowboarding community. Same reasons here. Better float. Rockers are not only good for powder though. They are awesome for rails, box tops, and just pure control. Catching an edge takes extra effort with rockers.


Total utter and complete fucking crap. Rome has a line of reverse camber boards that came out a few years called the 1985 series based on, yep, reverse camber snowboards that came out in 1985. Fifteen years before the shane McConkey skis came out.


----------



## Leo

mjd said:


> Total utter and complete fucking crap. Rome has a line of reverse camber boards that came out a few years called the 1985 series based on, yep, reverse camber snowboards that came out in 1985. Fifteen years before the shane McConkey skis came out.


Crap? Maybe you should read the first link I posted. The camber technology came from the Ski industry. Here is another source instead of some random rant:

Big Sky Board Sports

Shane McConkey *FATHERED* the rocker tech. There is a very big reason why snowboard rockers did not catch on until around 2005. Give credit where it is due. Spit some sources if you want to debate instead of calling another person's post utter and complete fucking crap. Google can be your friend buddy.

BTW: Let me know if you want more sources. I can pull them out of my ass all day. You want me to grab the information from the vendors themselves? I'll be happy to oblige.


----------



## mjd

Leo said:


> Crap? Maybe you should read the first link I posted. The camber technology came from the Ski industry. Here is another source instead of some random rant:
> 
> Big Sky Board Sports
> 
> Shane McConkey *FATHERED* the rocker tech. There is a very big reason why snowboard rockers did not catch on until around 2005. Give credit where it is due. Spit some sources if you want to debate instead of calling another person's post utter and complete fucking crap. Google can be your friend buddy.
> 
> BTW: Let me know if you want more sources. I can pull them out of my ass all day. You want me to grab the information from the vendors themselves? I'll be happy to oblige.


Wait a minute- so Rome calls their reverse camber snowboards "1985" because that's the year snowboard companies added camber to their boards?? gee, that makes sense.


----------



## Leo

mjd said:


> Wait a minute- so Rome calls their reverse camber snowboards "1985" because that's the year snowboard companies added camber to their boards?? gee, that makes sense.


Are you even bothering to read any of the links I am providing? You expect people to believe the stuff you're posting when you can't even come up with a valid source?

Yes, snowboard rockers were around in 1985. No, they never went mainstream. They were few and used mainly by shop owners/employees. Just because you build a board shaped like a banana does not mean it will perform like a rocker. There is much more tech that goes into it. The idea has been around for a long time no doubt. There is a reason why I chose the word "Fathered" instead of invented. Shane McConkey designed the right side-cut and other stuff. He had the right idea with the whole powder = water thing.

Post a link of Rome saying their 1985 is the same design as the reverse cambered boards from 1985. I have money that says Rome uses the words "inspired by" or some variation of said words. Leonardo DaVinci invented the earliest helicopters and airplanes, but you aren't going to credit him for inventing the actual Helicopter. Leonardo only provided the very basic concept of the helicopter. Someone else actually had to invent a working model.

I'm still waiting for your sources by the way.


----------



## mjd

Leo said:


> Are you even bothering to read any of the links I am providing? You expect people to believe the stuff you're posting when you can't even come up with a valid source?
> 
> Yes, snowboard rockers were around in 1985. No, they never went mainstream. They were few and used mainly by shop owners/employees. Just because you build a board shaped like a banana does not mean it will perform like a rocker. There is much more tech that goes into it. The idea has been around for a long time no doubt. There is a reason why I chose the word "Fathered" instead of invented. Shane McConkey designed the right side-cut and other stuff. He had the right idea with the whole powder = water thing.
> 
> Post a link of Rome saying their 1985 is the same design as the reverse cambered boards from 1985. I have money that says Rome uses the words "inspired by" or some variation of said words. Leonardo DaVinci invented the earliest helicopters and airplanes, but you aren't going to credit him for inventing the actual Helicopter. Leonardo only provided the very basic concept of the helicopter. Someone else actually had to invent a working model.
> 
> I'm still waiting for your sources by the way.


Source: Igor Sikorski invented the helicopter. 

Last paragraph.

_The history of reverse camber technology is interesting. Many people believe that it is a recent development in board technology when in fact, there have been reverse camber boards for nearly two decades._


----------



## Leo

Oh look, I found something for you.

History of Burton Snowboarding North America - Snowboarding, Surfing and Skateboarding Superstore

You probably won't read that either even though it gives you an idea of why 1985 was the chosen name for the Rome boards.

Oh wait, there's more! 1985 seems to have some sort of significance for snowboarding

Vancouver 2010 Olympic - Snowboard - Winter Games – Vancouver Vibez

Even on Wikipedia

Snowboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait, wait, wait...

Alessandro Casson:

Okay, I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with this last one

Assessing the evolution of snowboard gear - by Meg A Wright - Helium

By the way, what was with the Helicopter inventor reference? You only backed up my statement with that. Also, did I not already agree that there were reverse cambered snowboards around? Do you not realize the significance behind why reverse camber snowboards did not catch on until after Shane McConkey's Spatula skis? It was the implementation of the reverse camber technology. Shane McConkey designed it the way it should be done. He made it work and made it work extremely well. Like I said, you can build a banana shaped board, but that does not mean it will work the way you intended it to. Lots of other factors behind it. Now why don't you skim through some of my sources. Plenty of reasons why Rome probably named their series of boards 1985. I'm guessing it is due to snowboarding's first World Cup event.

Edit: Have to toss these in here too. Jeremy Jones' comments... read them.

REMEMBERING SHANE McCONKEY

Rockered skis and snowboards make hitting the slopes easier for all


----------



## Guest

Leo said:


> I don't disagree with you at all, but by pushing one brand over another, you are basically doing the same thing as said "fanboys". Everyone has their preferences. There is a huge number of NeverSummer fans here too. Nobody has to agree with certain companies' marketing strategies, but there really is no need to put the consumers down. A lot of people are blind to all of the technicalities. There are equally as many people who do not want to spend time researching all of the tech that's out there so they get the boards that others recommend. No matter what though, boards are boards. Even the people who ride Lamars are still snowboarders. No need to rag on them. Hate the company, not the people that use it.


fair enough. my beef isn't on ripping on other peoples' tech, but rather claiming as their own. shady practices such as that and relatively bad customer service, personally, makes it hard for me to support a company like that.

same with the riders. i don't hate people that ride Mervin boards. if they're riding and enjoying it, hell yea more power to ya! however, it's the fanboys who can't seem to keep their mouths shut about how they're riding a Banana and how it's the best thing that's happened to snowboarding since the snowboard, who make me wanna stick their Banana in their ass. :dunno:


----------



## Leo

kyouness said:


> fair enough. my beef isn't on ripping on other peoples' tech, but rather claiming as their own. shady practices such as that and relatively bad customer service, personally, makes it hard for me to support a company like that.
> 
> same with the riders. i don't hate people that ride Mervin boards. if they're riding and enjoying it, hell yea more power to ya! however, it's the fanboys who can't seem to keep their mouths shut about how they're riding a Banana and how it's the best thing that's happened to snowboarding since the snowboard, who make me wanna stick their Banana in their ass. :dunno:


Your post made me :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## mjd

Leo said:


> Oh look, I found something for you.
> 
> History of Burton Snowboarding North America - Snowboarding, Surfing and Skateboarding Superstore
> 
> You probably won't read that either even though it gives you an idea of why 1985 was the chosen name for the Rome boards.
> 
> Oh wait, there's more! 1985 seems to have some sort of significance for snowboarding
> 
> Vancouver 2010 Olympic - Snowboard - Winter Games – Vancouver Vibez
> 
> Even on Wikipedia
> 
> Snowboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wait, wait, wait...
> 
> Alessandro Casson:
> 
> Okay, I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with this last one
> 
> Assessing the evolution of snowboard gear - by Meg A Wright - Helium
> 
> By the way, what was with the Helicopter inventor reference? You only backed up my statement with that. Also, did I not already agree that there were reverse cambered snowboards around? Do you not realize the significance behind why reverse camber snowboards did not catch on until after Shane McConkey's Spatula skis? It was the implementation of the reverse camber technology. Shane McConkey designed it the way it should be done. He made it work and made it work extremely well. Like I said, you can build a banana shaped board, but that does not mean it will work the way you intended it to. Lots of other factors behind it. Now why don't you skim through some of my sources. Plenty of reasons why Rome probably named their series of boards 1985. I'm guessing it is due to snowboarding's first World Cup event.
> 
> Edit: Have to toss these in here too. Jeremy Jones' comments... read them.
> 
> REMEMBERING SHANE McCONKEY
> 
> Rockered skis and snowboards make hitting the slopes easier for all


Were people flying helicopters around Italy in 16th century? No, but in the 1980's people were building rc boards and other people were buying them and riding them all over the place. And Rome named it after Terry Kidwell who supposedly in 1985 rode one- I don't really know or care- it's 2009 now. But reverse camber had started with snowboards and not Shane McConkey. Not the same tech of course how the hell could it be after 25 years?? I never rode an eighties board and by the looks of them don't really have much of a desire to but there they are just the same. 

Also, you can find anything on the internet to back up anything you want to say. I can throw out 50 links proving the Holocaust never happened but that doesn't change history.


----------



## AWNOW

I agree with MJD, sources are bullshit.


----------



## Kingscare

Clearly not enough snow out there in everyone's area.


----------



## Leo

mjd said:


> Were people flying helicopters around Italy in 16th century? No, but in the 1980's people were building rc boards and other people were buying them and riding them all over the place. And Rome named it after Terry Kidwell who supposedly in 1985 rode one- I don't really know or care- it's 2009 now. But reverse camber had started with snowboards and not Shane McConkey. Not the same tech of course how the hell could it be after 25 years?? I never rode an eighties board and by the looks of them don't really have much of a desire to but there they are just the same.
> 
> Also, you can find anything on the internet to back up anything you want to say. I can throw out 50 links proving the Holocaust never happened but that doesn't change history.


Those links you post about the Holocaust will more than likely be from a bunch of no name idiots. I gave you tons of *CREDIBLE* sources.

And again, you only proved my Leonardo DaVinci reference right. I said he wasn't able to invent a working one. He did however actually build one. Same thing as the rockered snowboards from the 80s. Someone invented it, people rode it, and it didn't work. Hence it was put away for 20+ years. Gee, Shane McConkey designs an actual working Rocker ski and all of a sudden snowboard companies churn out working (and hugely successful) rockered snowboards. Again, I don't credit Shane McConkey for coming up with the first and original idea of reverse camber. He made it actually work and it worked really well. Yet another HENCE, he FATHERED rocker tech. He nurtured it, fed it, and helped it to grow up and become successful in life.

So many references to the importance of the year 1985 for snowboarding and you believe that Rome named their line of boards 1985 because somebody supposedly rode a rockered board in the 80s??? I'll tell you what, when I go into work tomorrow... I'll ask the Rome rep to give me the story behind that number. You could be right, I'm not doubting you. But I am doubting your opinion about Shane McConkey. I will also ask the Rome rep about him.


----------



## Leo

AWNOW said:


> I agree with MJD, sources are bullshit.


But people on the forums that make claims without any source are all correct 

Credibility is the name of the game here. There are credible sources and then there are crappy sources.


----------



## AWNOW

Leo said:


> But people on the forums that make claims without any source are all correct
> 
> Credibility is the name of the game here. There are credible sources and then there are crappy sources.


A bit of satire in that post of mine.


----------



## Leo

AWNOW said:


> A bit of satire in that post of mine.


Totally misread that then lol 

Off topic, but rather funny when talking about bad sources of info...

The Flat Earth Society -- Home


----------



## Guest

Kingscare said:


> Clearly not enough snow out there in everyone's area.


we just got dumped on, but i'm at work.


----------



## Leo

I'll admit it... we have no snow here. We made snow, but I have work and finals this whole week 

Boredom is boredom. Debating while bored helps to pass time


----------



## Guest

Since most of you guys are N.S Riders let me tell you that Lib/GNU has hardly any camber boards anymore....Like as in you cant even find a 2010 T Rice in a camber anymore hince (MTX). 

Camber is for ski's...

Reverse is the future like it or not most companys will soon shy away from any normal camber boards. Reverse or RC, C2 will be the standard design..

Size and weight has nothing to do with riding camber or not!


----------



## Guest

frosty1976 said:


> Since most of you guys are N.S Riders let me tell you that Lib/GNU has hardly any camber boards anymore....Like as in you cant even find a 2010 T Rice in a camber anymore hince (MTX).
> 
> Camber is for ski's...
> 
> Reverse is the future like it or not most companys will soon shy away from any normal camber boards. Reverse or RC, C2 will be the standard design..
> 
> Size and weight has nothing to do with riding camber or not!


what are you talking about? no one here said you shouldn't ride reverse camber. :dunno:


----------



## ATOTony76

kyouness said:


> fair enough. my beef isn't on ripping on other peoples' tech, but rather claiming as their own. shady practices such as that and relatively bad customer service, personally, makes it hard for me to support a company like that.
> 
> same with the riders. i don't hate people that ride Mervin boards. if they're riding and enjoying it, hell yea more power to ya! however, it's the fanboys who can't seem to keep their mouths shut about how they're riding a Banana and how it's the best thing that's happened to snowboarding since the snowboard, who make me wanna stick their Banana in their ass. :dunno:


It is the best thing that ever happened. Lib Tech is the Shit


Looks like we might just have to have a gang fight between the Lib Tech and the Never Summer Boys.


----------



## Guest

ATOTony76 said:


> It is the best thing that ever happened. Lib Tech is the Shit
> 
> 
> Looks like we might just have to have a gang fight between the Lib Tech and the Never Summer Boys.


wouldn't wanna mess with the LibTech "gangstas" and their tall tees. :cheeky4:

besides, i don't ride NeverSummer, i ride CAPiTA. it's a preference thing.


----------



## ATOTony76

kyouness said:


> wouldn't wanna mess with the LibTech "gangstas" and their tall tees. :cheeky4:
> 
> besides, i don't ride NeverSummer, i ride CAPiTA. it's a preference thing.


There can always be more gangs. But capita is way more gangster then LibTech (as far as how the rider dresses)


----------



## Guest

lies! unless you count tight girly pants gangsta... in which case... hell yea!


----------



## RickB

my first board was reverse camber and it also had a convex base. I shoulda kept it!
1987 Sims


----------



## The Chairman

Leo said:


> The Snowboard, Camber vs Rocker debate | Shoreline Snowboard and Ski Blog
> 
> Reverse Camber Snowboards: The Next Evolution of Snowboarding or Just Hype? | Suite101.com
> 
> The gist of it all? Reverse camber technology was fathered by Shane McConkey. He was a major powder junkie and wanted skis that float better on the pow. He came up with a theory that powder acts similar to water when you ride on it. Wakeboards and water skis are all reverse cambered and this is where Shane got the idea to use that technology on skis. The reason he even thought about the whole water thing was because one of his friends told him that his old bent skis seemed to float better in the pow. It made complete sense to him. Hence, reverse camber was invented for better float in the powder.
> 
> His invention was adopted by the snowboarding community. Same reasons here. Better float. Rockers are not only good for powder though. They are awesome for rails, box tops, and just pure control. Catching an edge takes extra effort with rockers.


Actually there is a patent on a rockered ski from 1940!


----------



## The Chairman

Leo said:


> Those links you post about the Holocaust will more than likely be from a bunch of no name idiots. I gave you tons of *CREDIBLE* sources.
> 
> And again, you only proved my Leonardo DaVinci reference right. I said he wasn't able to invent a working one. He did however actually build one. Same thing as the rockered snowboards from the 80s. Someone invented it, people rode it, and it didn't work. Hence it was put away for 20+ years. Gee, Shane McConkey designs an actual working Rocker ski and all of a sudden snowboard companies churn out working (and hugely successful) rockered snowboards. Again, I don't credit Shane McConkey for coming up with the first and original idea of reverse camber. He made it actually work and it worked really well. Yet another HENCE, he FATHERED rocker tech. He nurtured it, fed it, and helped it to grow up and become successful in life.
> 
> So many references to the importance of the year 1985 for snowboarding and you believe that Rome named their line of boards 1985 because somebody supposedly rode a rockered board in the 80s??? I'll tell you what, when I go into work tomorrow... I'll ask the Rome rep to give me the story behind that number. You could be right, I'm not doubting you. But I am doubting your opinion about Shane McConkey. I will also ask the Rome rep about him.


The rockered boards of the 80's did work for what we could do back then, which was surfing powder, building backhill jumps and messing around . But once the ski areas started allowing boards they rode like saucer sleds on hardpack, So companies looked to a camber design to put pressure over the ends of the effective edge so a board would hold a better edge on packed snow. This also gave boards the other benefit of camber, which is loading uo the tail for spring and a more lively feel. That the horizontally laminated rockered boards, like the Sims Kidwell desperatley needed. Now with the advances in sidecuts, construction and materials your able to have a rockered board that holds an edge and give you that float in pow and fun surfy feel. Really where snowboarding should be. We at Never Summer give Mervin credit for bringing this fun back to snowboarding. For us, when we decided to build a rocker board, we knew these advantages having built rockered boards ourselves in 1985 under the Swift name! But our boards are known for edge hold and stability. We knew this is the advantage of a cambered board and didn't want to lose this, hence our RC design, giving riders the best of both worlds.


----------



## Leo

Vman said:


> Actually there is a patent on a rockered ski from 1940!


Like I said, he didn't invent the damn thing. I said he Fathered it. Big difference. Rocker tech out from ages ago... They disappear for over 20 years... Shane McConkey designs an amazing rockered ski with a reverse side-cut and a bunch of other tech... POOF! Rockered skis and snowboards return with design cues from Shane's Spatula. Something has to give. Not to mention all of the pros that credit him for the rocker tech he designed. Including Jeremy Jones.

What's the whole point of my post? Snowboards have always borrowed from ski technology. Should be a great reason not to hate on skiers for no reason other than they ski.


----------



## ATOTony76

Leo said:


> Like I said, he didn't invent the damn thing. I said he Fathered it. Big difference. Rocker tech out from ages ago... They disappear for over 20 years... Shane McConkey designs an amazing rockered ski with a reverse side-cut and a bunch of other tech... POOF! Rockered skis and snowboards r*eturn with design cues from Shane's Spatula*. Something has to give. Not to mention all of the pros that credit him for the rocker tech he designed. Including Jeremy Jones.
> 
> What's the whole point of my post? Snowboards have always borrowed from ski technology. Should be a great reason not to hate on skiers for no reason other than they ski.


so not only did he fathered it, he cooked it!


----------



## Leo

ATOTony76 said:


> so not only did he fathered it, he cooked it!


Nah... He baked it! With chocolate chips!


----------



## The Chairman

legallyillegal said:


> new technology haha like when inca did it in the 90s and the current NS RC ripoff



Ripoff??? Those are pretty strong words. We give Mervin credit for bringing the fun, surfy feeling of rockered boards with incredible pow float back to snowboarding. We were aware of Inca design but in no way copied it(it’s patented)??? I don’t think the owners of NS spent countless hours on a computer, building molds, boards, testing, and staying awake at night on the possibility of putting their business on the line if they were just going to copy a patented design? Plus the Inca isn’t a rockered board, it’s flat. Our cambered sections run from the inserts out wheras the Inca is right underneath the foot. Having the camber from the mounting areas out to the ends of the board is really where you want it. On the tail for loading up the board for spring and on the nose to put pressure over the tip for edge hold and stability. Also are cambered areas are nowhere near as extreme as the Inca design. And when we first decided to do a rocker we recognized these advantages but didn't want to lose the stability and edge hold of camber. So we created a board with a rocker profile in the center and extended the camber from the mounting areas out toward the ends of the board. Unlike a traditional camber board where the camber runs to the end of the effective edge , we designed the camber to come just 2" shy. This created a flat spot so your less likely to catch that leading edge into or exiting a turn. We tested various different sidecuts and came up with our own design Vario Power Grip sidecut that is best suited for our Rocker/Camber design. And we were the first to bring it to the market. How can you say the current NS RC ripoff when we would only be ripping off ourselves!


----------



## mjd

Leo said:


> Like I said, he didn't invent the damn thing. I said he Fathered it. Big difference. Rocker tech out from ages ago... They disappear for over 20 years... Shane McConkey designs an amazing rockered ski with a reverse side-cut and a bunch of other tech... POOF! Rockered skis and snowboards return with design cues from Shane's Spatula. Something has to give. Not to mention all of the pros that credit him for the rocker tech he designed. Including Jeremy Jones.
> 
> What's the whole point of my post? Snowboards have always borrowed from ski technology. Should be a great reason not to hate on skiers for no reason other than they ski.


Did the ski industry invent side cut? Just asking- i don't really know. But I do know I'm not going to assume Jeremy Jones (and yr talking about the AK spine survivalist one?) speaks for the entire global snowboarding community. I bet if you asked the top 50 riders who invented rocker SHane McConkey's name would not come all that often. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for designing magic powder skis but snowboards had tech long before 2001. Which makes me wonder where he got the idea from.


----------



## Milo303

ATOTony76 said:


> There can always be more gangs. But capita is way more gangster then LibTech (as far as how the rider dresses)


The hell are you talking about?

I'm a white guy from the middle of know where Kansas... I ride a Capita Horrorscope.

I see a hell of a lot of 16 year old gangster looking kids riding Bananas around though. Running into my board in the lift lines, talking about how their mom is gonna be picking them up at 1pm so they better hurry and get some runs in.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

You know who is gangsta MFM he's so gangsta when it gets cold he plays chess at Inxspot in Keystone. Chess now that's a gangsta game let me tell you.


----------



## legallyillegal

Vman said:


> Ripoff??? Those are pretty strong words. We give Mervin credit for bringing the fun, surfy feeling of rockered boards with incredible pow float back to snowboarding. We were aware of Inca design but in no way copied it(it’s patented)??? I don’t think the owners of NS spent countless hours on a computer, building molds, boards, testing, and staying awake at night on the possibility of putting their business on the line if they were just going to copy a patented design? Plus the Inca isn’t a rockered board, it’s flat. Our cambered sections run from the inserts out wheras the Inca is right underneath the foot. Having the camber from the mounting areas out to the ends of the board is really where you want it. On the tail for loading up the board for spring and on the nose to put pressure over the tip for edge hold and stability. Also are cambered areas are nowhere near as extreme as the Inca design. And when we first decided to do a rocker we recognized these advantages but didn't want to lose the stability and edge hold of camber. So we created a board with a rocker profile in the center and extended the camber from the mounting areas out toward the ends of the board. Unlike a traditional camber board where the camber runs to the end of the effective edge , we designed the camber to come just 2" shy. This created a flat spot so your less likely to catch that leading edge into or exiting a turn. We tested various different sidecuts and came up with our own design Vario Power Grip sidecut that is best suited for our Rocker/Camber design. And we were the first to bring it to the market. How can you say the current NS RC ripoff when we would only be ripping off ourselves!


reading comprehension? hello?


----------



## The Chairman

Leo said:


> Like I said, he didn't invent the damn thing. I said he Fathered it. Big difference. Rocker tech out from ages ago... They disappear for over 20 years... Shane McConkey designs an amazing rockered ski with a reverse side-cut and a bunch of other tech... POOF! Rockered skis and snowboards return with design cues from Shane's Spatula. Something has to give. Not to mention all of the pros that credit him for the rocker tech he designed. Including Jeremy Jones.
> 
> What's the whole point of my post? Snowboards have always borrowed from ski technology. Should be a great reason not to hate on skiers for no reason other than they ski.


Since we have always borrowed on ski technology than why are ski companies coming to us to make their product? Maybe to borrow our P-Tex sidewall, that we invented....er... I mean Fathered. Big difference since we perfected attaching it to wood. Not everything in snowboarding comes from skiing. Shaped skis,deep sidecuts, twin tip skis, wide skis for pow. I'm so glad we could borrow all that from skiing. Innovation is sometimes bred out of necessity or accident, I'm sure Shane McConkey did just this when he found the float in his design for those deep Tahoe days. Maybe you should move to Tahoe and be inspired to father or invent something so we don't have to always keep borrowing ski tech. Have fun on those amazing Spatulas!


----------



## Guest

Vman said:


> Ripoff??? Those are pretty strong words. We give Mervin credit for bringing the fun, surfy feeling of rockered boards with incredible pow float back to snowboarding. We were aware of Inca design but in no way copied it(it’s patented)??? I don’t think the owners of NS spent countless hours on a computer, building molds, boards, testing, and staying awake at night on the possibility of putting their business on the line if they were just going to copy a patented design? Plus the Inca isn’t a rockered board, it’s flat. Our cambered sections run from the inserts out wheras the Inca is right underneath the foot. Having the camber from the mounting areas out to the ends of the board is really where you want it. On the tail for loading up the board for spring and on the nose to put pressure over the tip for edge hold and stability. Also are cambered areas are nowhere near as extreme as the Inca design. And when we first decided to do a rocker we recognized these advantages but didn't want to lose the stability and edge hold of camber. So we created a board with a rocker profile in the center and extended the camber from the mounting areas out toward the ends of the board. Unlike a traditional camber board where the camber runs to the end of the effective edge , we designed the camber to come just 2" shy. This created a flat spot so your less likely to catch that leading edge into or exiting a turn. We tested various different sidecuts and came up with our own design Vario Power Grip sidecut that is best suited for our Rocker/Camber design. And we were the first to bring it to the market. How can you say the current NS RC ripoff when we would only be ripping off ourselves!


i think he's talking about how LibTech ripped off NeverSummer's RC tech and called it their own.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

Shaped skis actually borrowed from Snowboarding on that one. Reverse Camber I have a sims from 87 sitting here that you can see the nose is pretty damn rockered.


----------



## The Chairman

legallyillegal said:


> reading comprehension? hello?


My bad... I see what your saying. Got a little defensive and went to alot of Maiden shows in the 80's


----------



## The Chairman

BurtonAvenger said:


> Shaped skis actually borrowed from Snowboarding on that one. Reverse Camber I have a sims from 87 sitting here that you can see the nose is pretty damn rockered.


I was being sarcastic. All those things I mentioned were borrowed from snowboarding. But why wouldn't they if it's going to make it better and wouldn't snowboarding take something from skiing. I'm glad to have a P-tex base and metal edges. Is that 87 Sims a Kidwell? That's the original banana.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

God no I wish it was a Kidwell, I always keep my eyes peeled for one of those up here. Progression is where it's at gotta keep moving forward.


----------



## burritosandsnow

BurtonAvenger said:


> Shaped skis actually borrowed from Snowboarding on that one. Reverse Camber I have a sims from 87 sitting here that you can see the nose is pretty damn rockered.





Vman said:


> I was being sarcastic. All those things I mentioned were borrowed from snowboarding. But why wouldn't they if it's going to make it better and wouldn't snowboarding take something from skiing. I'm glad to have a P-tex base and metal edges. Is that 87 Sims a Kidwell? That's the original banana.


in 87 Tom Sims took an Alva skateboard and attached it to a pre fabbed rockered plastic snurfer type board and dubbed it the " flying banana" ... I DARE anyone to argue this so I can make you look like a fool ... please im begging you debate this with me ...


----------



## mjd

burritosandsnow said:


> in 87 Tom Sims took an Alva skateboard and attached it to a pre fabbed rockered plastic snurfer type board and dubbed it the " flying banana" ... I DARE anyone to argue this so I can make you look like a fool ... please im begging you debate this with me ...


I think it was 1977. That thing had Travis Rice written all over it.


----------



## burritosandsnow

havent seen that model ... and tbh the skate board looks amazing for something thats supposedly 30 years old .. the one im referring to is at Brighton in the museum ... and its straight up an Alva deck that was used for skating that he mounted on one of those yellow pieces of wtf ever it is haha .. but the ALva board is def late 80s ( im old and actually skated then so I know the shape and time coincide haha) ill snap a pic today when im up there .....


----------



## burritosandsnow

o and as far as the op goes .. I can see why T rice doesnt ride a banana shape .. tbh the banana tech has been the sketchiest of all the rc techs ive tried ( banana, c2, ns'S tech, and cap fk tech )so I can see where someone who shoots himself stupid fast at huge bc booters wouldnt be a huge fan. It doesnt in any way discredit the tech ... i mean jed anderson is the current rail rider fotm and im pretty sure hes doesnt ride rc either and its "the thing " for jibbing ..


----------



## mjd

burritosandsnow said:


> o and as far as the op goes .. I can see why T rice doesnt ride a banana shape .. tbh the banana tech has been the sketchiest of all the rc techs ive tried ( banana, c2, ns'S tech, and cap fk tech )so I can see where someone who shoots himself stupid fast at huge bc booters wouldnt be a huge fan. It doesnt in any way discredit the tech ... i mean jed anderson is the current rail rider fotm and im pretty sure hes doesnt ride rc either and its "the thing " for jibbing ..


Did you see the movie Neverland where Wofgang _____ is riding one of those pointy decks with no bindings. That set up immediately reminded me of that. You gotta love the rubber strap binding. Just a matter of time before someone starts bringing all that stuff back as novelty gear.


----------



## burritosandsnow

yeah its called " no boarding " and a few companies do make that stuff already haha ... I know Burton has one for sure


----------



## Guest

Ok so I know its been pretty adequately addressed but Id like to address where the rumor that Trice doesnt ride btx came from. So when Thats it Thats all came out, There where parts of the film where Trice wasnt riding BTX, one of the most obvious reasons, was that the tech wasn't around yet and wasn't on his boards for a while later. I dont see how the fact that he doesnt always ride it, negates the fact that BTX is really cool and actually helps. I think the people who have ridden it and disliked it, didnt get past the initial stages of getting used to the new ride. If i spend time on my old Trice from 06 that only has MTX, then hop on my '10 Trice with BTX (like i did today in BC) i notice a big difference. I think since we all learned on cambered, it takes more getting used to rocker. I think we all seem to be extremely critical of certain things that we really shouldnt be. There are 2 ways to look at this. First, for every tool there is a time and a place, so if you have the quiver Trice does, why not pick the exact board with the exact feeling you want to do something specific? Just because he doesnt always ride btx doesnt mean the technology is bad. Look at all the other really great riders that are using BTX! Its a preference. Isnt it great we have all these options now!? its almost like us boarders are resorting to bashing other tech to maintain and justify our intense brand loyalty. Im a die hard mervin fan, but i do like to read up and hear about innovations from other companies. Last thing i wanna say, once C2 came out, Trice was all about it, i read somewhere that he was quoted saying how much he liked it and how awesome it was haha. Ill see if i can dig that up somewhere.


----------



## SnowOwl

One movie...The Art Of Flight :cheeky4:


----------



## linvillegorge

Wow. That was a pretty impressive thread bump.


----------



## hktrdr

Yeah, what's up with that?


----------



## SnowOwl

linvillegorge said:


> Wow. That was a pretty impressive thread bump.


Why thank you :laugh: haha. 

As to why? For starters this is a forum, isn't the point of this partly for conversation?:dunno: I'm bored and stoned and I thought it just a super amusing thread to come upon. To start off with, the film The Art Of Flight started filming in 2009, around the time this thread started. So that means he was rockin the Lib Techs being he has his own line with them...and its still C2 Power *BANANA*, so it seems everyone was kinda outdated except for the guy who posted last before me. Not to mention the amount of random arguments created haha

Just seemed like an interesting read being that I'm stoked on using my Attack Banana next season, with it's *E*C2 BTX. OOoO fancy.


----------



## ETM

tylerkat89 said:


> I'm bored and stoned


You smokin hydro or natural?


----------



## SnowOwl

ETM said:


> You smokin hydro or natural?


I may be Japanese as well, but I'm from SoCal. Hydro for the definite win.


----------



## ETM

LOL hydgy. I hear travis rice only smokes natural.


----------



## SnowOwl

ETM said:


> LOL hydgy. I hear travis rice only smokes natural.


LOL like I'm some fanboy who cares what kind of pot he smokes, but it sounds like he's smokin Wyoming shit and sadly limiting himself to quality.


----------



## hktrdr

tylerkat89 said:


> One movie...The Art Of Flight :cheeky4:


Ok, how about some more controversy: T. Rice is sponsored by Contour, but used GoPro cameras for that movie.


----------



## hktrdr

And yes, I know he signed with Contour after The Art Of Flight was released...


----------



## SnowOwl

Probably because a lot people don't even care to know who Contour even is with GoPro lol


----------



## Nivek

Contour is a superior system for snowsports.


----------



## NWBoarder

Travis Rice frequents Alaska, The PNW, and BC Canada. I don't think he's limiting himself to just Wyoming ganja.  And I would way rather own a Contour or a Drift for snow, not a GoPro.


----------



## Nuff

I used to own a Drift, the lens and video quality is sub par compared to my mates gopro. Even tough it has 1080 and 720 modes. The gopro vids looked a whole lot better.


----------

