# 2013 Lib Tech Banana Magic impressions / review



## NightRider2613 (Feb 28, 2012)

Awesome review dude, thanks for writing it. Reading this gives me confidence that I purchased the right thing when I decided to upgrade my deck this season. I wound up going with the Lib Tech TRS to give me better stability on the fucking ice that defines East Coast hills. One of the gents at my local shop that really knows his shit was totally stoked about magne-traction in Lib boards. Others on here said the same thing so I decided to pull the trigger. Looks like I made the right decision


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

I was going to get the TRS, and decided at the last moment to just jump in with both feet and get the Magic due to what Lib calls "Horsepower" which is a basalt fabric weave that is both more damp and lighter. 

The TRS looks great too, in fact I thought I would like it more in the shop do it having a more "C2" camber hybrid shape. I definitely liked it's price tag relative to the Magic too!

You made a great choice. :thumbsup:


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

Your enthusiasm for this board sounds pretty much like I felt when I got one last year. It was my first try at "gullwing" design, having already ridden camber, then rocker, then camrock. This thing blows all of the others away! And it is the best board I've ridden in the pipe.

Apparently, my one mistake was getting it too large. I got a 161, while I weigh 175 with a size 9 boot. So I sold my 161 and bought this year's 157. An expensive switch, but I think it's the right move. I'll be riding the same board as you Brainwashed.

Just curious which bindings you put on yours. I'm gonna start with Burton Malavitas. If they are too soft, I'll move on to Cartels.

BTW, the C2 design in the TRS is noticeably different than the Enhanced BTX in the Magic imo. C2 is a more stable, less playful ride. I also ride a TRice with C2.

Anyone I've talked to who's ridden the Magic absolutely loves it btw.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

GreyDragon said:


> Your enthusiasm for this board sounds pretty much like I felt when I got one last year. It was my first try at "gullwing" design, having already ridden camber, then rocker, then camrock. This thing blows all of the others away! And it is the best board I've ridden in the pipe.
> 
> Apparently, my one mistake was getting it too large. I got a 161, while I weigh 175 with a size 9 boot. So I sold my 161 and bought this year's 157. An expensive switch, but I think it's the right move. I'll be riding the same board as you Brainwashed.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. 

I damn near got the 161 also. I should I would need it for the float, but the shop owner told my Lib's get stiffer as they longer (that's what she said!). Stiffer than the 157 didn't sound so appealing to me, because hand flexing in the shop gave me the impression that the Magic was stiff and damp in a 157. Now, hand flexing can be misleading however, but that was my impression in the shop and it has proven true on the hill.

The Lib's also run long per my experience. They say it's a 157, but the 157 Magic is longer than my old Tom Sims 159. In my experience it's more like a 162+. It definitely does ride 'long' too. It is a stout feeling 157. 

As for bindings, I'm running 2011/12 Burton Cartel's. As an old plate binding curmudgeon I can't speak to how stiff one binding is to another one. They all feel soft to me... I'd love to try other bindings to see if I can tell the differences. I know I tend to cinch those Cartel's down until my toes are blue though. I can't get over my OCD for board control (I'm sure to my detriment) and cinch the binders down really almost too tight. 

For what it's worth, I do think boot stiffness matters a great deal. I run Burton Ion's. They seem like a medium stiff boot. If I could I would go for a stiffer boot than even the Ion. I think I would give up a little playfulness and slow speed flexibility, but for the bomber runs when I'm alone or hitting a icey double black diamond or a chundery skied out bowl I would appreciate the added stiffness. 

Hope that response helps, Dragon!


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

Hello Brainwashed,

I read your review and it's VERY interesting for me because I tend to buy a LibTech board, but I still don't know which one to get.

*About me:*
Usually I'm rinding 70% of my time on piste/groomers, 20% Offpiste/Frontcountry, 10% Park. I'm 1,82m tall and weigh 70kg. I am able to ride quite OK, which means: Normal pistes (all difficulties) are no problem, except for steep mogul slopes. Until now I haven't spent so much time in the park (i.e <<10% of my time, but I want to spend more time in the park in the future and come to the abovementioned 10% then). My park skills are modest therefore, i.e. flat boxes and small kickers are OK and I'm not doing any rails yet. I always try to catch powder if possible. Deep snow isn't a problem usually, except for when the ground and weather conditions are very bad.

At the moment I'm riding an Atom (not Atomic) Royality 159 Allmountain-Board with a Burton Cartel 09/10 binding and I use Salomon Maori in 42 (9).

*What I am looking for:*

I'm looking for a board that suits best for the abovementioned riding style. I looked around in german and english forums, at snowboard magazines' reviews, at blogs (angrysnowboarder, shayboarder, etc.) and in reviews in Youtube.

From what I heard, these boards would be my favorites at the moment (order: 1 = preferred, 8 = not preferred):

1.) LibTech TRS 157/159 (still undecided regarding the length)
2.) LibTech Banana Magic 157
3.) LibTech Attack Banana 156/159 (still undecided regarding the length)
4.) GNU Riders Choice 157
5.) Capita Black Snowboard Of Death 156/159 (still undecided regarding the length)
6.) LibTech Jamie Lynn Phoenix 157/160 (still undecided regarding the length)
7.) Ride Machete GT 157/160 (still undecided regarding the length)
8.) Rome Mod Rocker 156/159 (still undecided regarding the length)

I think the Neversumme boards (for example SL and Proto) are fine boards too, but I think they won't fit to my requirements so well.

*Most important questions:*

What do you think which LibTech Board fits best to me and which size would you recommed for me? I heard positive reviews about all of the boards, which makes the decision quite hard. I want to go for some buttering too and I thought that the Magic is too stiff for that and that I might be happier with a TRS, for example. An experienced guy from a german forum strongly recommended that I should prefer the Attack Banana over the Banana Magic, but I also heard that the EC2 is not so matured in comparison to the C2BTX or the shape of the Banana Magic (I forgot the name).

In this review they (just like you) prefer the Banana Magic more than the Attack Banana.






Also the guy in this video doesn't look so euphoric when he speaks about the Attack Banana.






I also tend to switch to Rome 390 Boss bindings (I like the idea of these canting pads because I have some knee issues) and Burton Ion boots (size 9). Do you think that's a fine combination together with some LibTech board?


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

someguy said:


> Hello Brainwashed,
> 
> this is Julian from Germany. I read your review and it's VERY interesting for me because I tend to buy a LibTech board, but I still don't know which one to get.
> 
> ...


Only numbers 1 and 4 (and maybe 3 and 7) are good for the type of riding that you are describing. 2 and 6 are probably the worst choices on your list.


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

I ride the Attack Banana 159 (mostly in icy East Coast conditions) and I couldn't be happier with it. It loves ice, and it's playful at slower speeds. I absolutely love the attack Naner.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

Can you please shortly explain why you chose the Attack Banana and not for example another LibTech board? Did you ride other LibTech boards?


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

someguy said:


> Can you please shortly explain why you chose the Attack Banana and not for example another LibTech board? Did you ride other LibTech boards?


Me: I'd call myself an "advanced intermediate" who gets out 20-30 times a year, mostly in NH and Maine. I am more into groomers, glades and natural smaller jumps than the park.

The only Lib Tech boards I demo'ed were the TRS, the Skate Banana and the Attack Banana.

- The Skate Banana was really not for me. I could tell that in 1 run. 

- The TRS is an awesome board. I loved it right away and thought I was going to buy it. I could have, and I probably would have been just as happy with it.

- The last board I demo'd was the Attack Banana, and I just liked the feel a little better at speed. For me, the TRS held its edge the same as the AB, but I just thought the AB was a little more buttery. Turn initiation just seemed so effortless. I liked the looks of it - and I got one for about $75 less than the TRS. 

I can't speak to the Banana Magic. It's the clear-cut favorite of a very knowledgeable local shop guy, but that's all I know about it. 

Wish I could offer more.


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

Jeb said:


> Me: I'd call myself an "advanced intermediate" who gets out 20-30 times a year, mostly in NH and Maine. I am more into groomers, glades and natural smaller jumps than the park.
> 
> The only Lib Tech boards I demo'ed were the TRS, the Skate Banana and the Attack Banana.
> 
> ...


If it matters, these were all 2012 models.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Only numbers 1 and 4 (and maybe 3 and 7) are good for the type of riding that you are describing. 2 and 6 are probably the worst choices on your list.


Could you please explain that a bit more? Why do you think that the TRS fits better than the Attack Banana? Why do you think that the BM doesn't fit at all? Thanks a lot in advance.


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Only numbers 1 and 4 (and maybe 3 and 7) are good for the type of riding that you are describing. 2 and 6 are probably the worst choices on your list.


I agree that 1 and 4 are probably best choices, but disagree that the Banana Magic is a worst choice. Since he doesn't do much jibbing, and the BM is FANTASTIC in the pipe and good on kickers, I think that is still worthy of consideration.
No to the Jamie Lynn.
And I don't know 7 & 8 enough to have an opinion there.


----------



## turbospartan (Oct 27, 2010)

I have a Banana Magic 157 and a Never Summer Evo 152. I like the Magic more for days where I am riding powder (better float) or want to carve (magnetraction). I ride the Evo on days where I want to mess around and have a more playful board. And I actually prefer the Evo in the trees because its soft shape and shorter length make it easier to rip through turns. 

I will say that the Magic has quite a bit more "bite" as far as edge hold. That can be a good and a bad thing. 

Good because on an icy day, the edges hold much better and you never wash out. You can carve a perfect sine wave and it feels like you're on rails. 

The bad is that I consider this a board where you almost need to always be paying attention to what you're doing, an advanced board. The reason I say this is because last year there was a time where I was hauling ass down the mountain and kind of not paying attention and caught and edge and damn near broke the back of my skull when I slammed down. Now this a bit of user error on my part for not really paying attention when going really fast... but its also something to consider. 

I've ridden the Magic the last few times I've been out this year (early season = icier), but I've come to find it was a lot more fun than I remembered it from last year. When I bought the Evo last year... I rode that almost every time I went up just because it was my new board, playful, etc. But getting back on the Magic (which I did because I kept washing out on my Evo on the ice, but I will say I needed my edges sharpened), it really renewed my interest in that board. My only wish is that it was a 154 instead of a 157 (I have the 1st years model, 2010 I think, which only came in 152 and 157. They didn't come out with a 154 until 2011). 

So again, I personally consider the Magic an advanced board in that you have to be focused when riding it - but it is a really great board. If you want to be buttering and what not, I'd suggest something softer / smaller.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

Ok thanks a lot for the input.

If I'd want to get a TRS or Attack Banana, which size would you recommend me?


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

someguy said:


> Could you please explain that a bit more? Why do you think that the TRS fits better than the Attack Banana? Why do you think that the BM doesn't fit at all? Thanks a lot in advance.


There are many reason, but this one alone answers the question: You are primarily riding groomers/on-piste, but the Magic is primarily an off-piste board.
Fantastic deck, but groomers are not its strong suit. Its like taking a big pow stick into the park - you could, but why would you want to?


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

GreyDragon said:


> I agree that 1 and 4 are probably best choices, but disagree that the Banana Magic is a worst choice. Since he doesn't do much jibbing, and the BM is FANTASTIC in the pipe and good on kickers, I think that is still worthy of consideration.
> No to the Jamie Lynn.
> And I don't know 7 & 8 enough to have an opinion there.


Actually, the Jamie Lynn is a better choice, as it is far superior to the Magic on groomers (except for in very icy conditions).


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> There are many reason, but this one alone answers the question: You are primarily riding groomers/on-piste, but the Magic is primarily an off-piste board.
> Fantastic deck, but groomers are not its strong suit. Its like taking a big pow stick into the park - you could, but why would you want to?


This is a good point. I can attest that the Attack Banana kills it on groomers. It loves ice and hardpack, soft snow and slush. It's a true "all-mountain" option.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

Very interesting. So I guess I should better be buying a LibTech TRS or Attack Banana. You guys also recommended GNU Rider's Choice to me, but I think I prefer the LibTech boards. I can't quite explain why, but the fact that more LibTech boards are recommended as top-boards makes me think that they produce better boards and have more experience in general. I know that they belong together at Mervin, but maybe there's still a difference.

So when those two boards are shortlisted, which one of them is a little bit more suitable and which size would you take?

- LibTech TRS 157 (minimum rider weight 58kg) 
- LibTech TRS 159 (minimum rider weight 63kg) 
- LibTech Attack Banana 156 (minimum rider weight 61kg) 
- LibTech Attack Banana 159 (minimum rider weight 63kg) 

I weigh about 70kg and together with my clothes and equipment I'm far over the 63kg, so I tend to get 159 length.

*@hktrdr & @GreyDragon:*

Both of you said that 1 (TRS) and 4 (RC) are best and that 3 (AB) is only second-best. Why is that? Could you please explain why you think that TRS fits better to me than Attack Banana? I need to know more about the thing TRS vs. Attack Banana. I feel like I can pull the trigger soon, but I need some more information before spending that much money. 

By the way, what do you think about my proposal to combine that board with a Rome 390 Boss and Burton Ions? At the moment I use Burton Cartels with Salomon Maori boots.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

someguy said:


> Very interesting. So I guess I should better be buying a LibTech TRS or Attack Banana. You guys also recommended GNU Rider's Choice to me, but I think I prefer the LibTech boards. I can't quite explain why, but the fact that more LibTech boards are recommended as top-boards makes me think that they produce better boards and have more experience in general. I know that they belong together at Mervin, but maybe there's still a difference.
> 
> So when those two boards are shortlisted, which one of them is a little bit more suitable and which size would you take?
> 
> ...


GNU boards are just as well/badly constructed as Lib-Tech. Zero difference. Many people would consider the RC to be a slightly upgraded TRS.

I picked those two over the AB because the camber profile-flex combo is better suited to groomers IMO. The AB has more rocker in the profile which helps with float in powder and turn initiation/looseness. However, to avoid it becoming to squirrelly/unstable on hard (like the Magic, which has more rocker) Mervin increased the stiffness resulting in less playfulness, pop, andvbutterability.
Accordingly, for mostly groomer riding I would go with the TRS/RC for playfulness and pop, while the AB is better for off-piste because of the float in powder and the extra stiffness.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Actually, the Jamie Lynn is a better choice, as it is far superior to the Magic on groomers (except for in very icy conditions).


I disagree. The Banana Magic is amazing on groomers. I am starting to doubt you have actually ridden these boards.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Brainwashed said:


> I disagree. The Banana Magic is amazing on groomers. I am starting to doubt you have actually ridden these boards.


As I said in the other thread: It is your right to disagree with me, but I stand by my opinion. The Magic is an amazing board, but a groomer deck it ain't.

Incidentally, that is also what Mervin is saying about the board...


----------



## Richie67 (Oct 11, 2012)

someguy said:


> Very interesting. So I guess I should better be buying a LibTech TRS or Attack Banana. You guys also recommended GNU Rider's Choice to me, but I think I prefer the LibTech boards. I can't quite explain why, but the fact that more LibTech boards are recommended as top-boards makes me think that they produce better boards and have more experience in general. I know that they belong together at Mervin, but maybe there's still a difference.
> 
> So when those two boards are shortlisted, which one of them is a little bit more suitable and which size would you take?
> 
> ...


The weight recommendation is a minimum, and its just that.. a recommendation. Don't be worried you are a good bit heavier than the minimum. I'm 75kg and I'd never consider the TRS in 159. Even at 5kg heavier than you my decision would be between the 154 and 157. 

I like the park and love hitting any natural features I can find, don't get the chance to ride much powder (and when I do I'll have a powder deck) and enjoy a more playful feel when on groomers as apposed to a stiffer board to bomb with. 154 would be my personal preference on the TRS.

Had a smiliar decision recently between 157/154 NS Proto, got the 154.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Richie67 said:


> The weight recommendation is a minimum, and its just that.. a recommendation. Don't be worried you are a good bit heavier than the minimum. I'm 75kg and I'd never consider the TRS in 159. Even at 5kg heavier than you my decision would be between the 154 and 157.
> 
> I like the park and love hitting any natural features I can find, don't get the chance to ride much powder (and when I do I'll have a powder deck) and enjoy a more playful feel when on groomers as apposed to a stiffer board to bomb with. 154 would be my personal preference on the TRS.
> 
> Had a smiliar decision recently between 157/154 NS Proto, got the 154.


Completely agree. I am about 70kg (without clothes and gear) and would chose between the 154 and 157 on the TRS. No way longer than that.
For the AB it would be 156 for sure.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> As I said in the other thread: It is your right to disagree with me, but I stand by my opinion. The Magic is an amazing board, but a groomer deck it ain't.
> 
> Incidentally, that is also what Mervin is saying about the board...


Where is Mervin saying that the Magic is more of a off groomer board and the Lynn where the Lynn is? The Lynn is actually set back .5" for powder. 

Have you ridden these boards? If you had you would know the Magic is not squirelly and rips in the carve. :dunno:


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

someguy said:


> Hello Brainwashed,
> 
> this is Julian from Germany. I read your review and it's VERY interesting for me because I tend to buy a LibTech board, but I still don't know which one to get.
> 
> ...


Those are tough questions. 

In my opinion, and it should be noted that I completely disagree with HKTRDR who has replied multiple times in response to you, for your riding I would rank the boards your looking at like this:

1.) LibTech TRS 157/159 (still undecided regarding the length)
2.) LibTech Attack Banana 156/159 (still undecided regarding the length)
3.) LibTech Banana Magic 157

I actually avoid the park. It would need to be perfect conditions for me to go in there. So for me the Banana MAgic is great. It flat rips on the groomers. And I mean, it's dead solid fast, steady and planted. It links carves better than some of the old slalom race boards I use to actually run gates with. It's great. Other people have said the same thing. Hell I was talking to a guy who finished boards at the Mervin Factory last weekend at Crystal and he said the Magic is too "carvy" for him and he like the Attack Banana. 

For you, it sounds like you would want a board a little more forgiving on the park and doing jibs and flatland type tricks and buttering. That would point your wants more towards the Attack Banana or the TRS. I think the Magic Banana would be a little too demanding and stiff for a beginner in the aprk. I would want a full Skate Banana if I wanted to learn how to ride the stuff in the park.

I just got back from skipping work and riding all day in 14" of new. I am still loving the Magic for the riding I do, but again I don't go in the park. I wouldn't know what I would want from a snowboard even if I did go in there. I would just want the softest more rockery board and shortest board I could get.

I would steer your towards one of the shorter length Attack Banana or the TRS. I would say the Attack Banana as a first choice. And again, the shorter lengths. You would only want more length if you want float in the powder. For jibs and the parks I would run a shorter board.

You really should demo all three boards though so you can feel what you think of them. Is there a way you can do that in Germany?

If you can't demo them, I really do think you would be happy with either the Attack or the TRS. I know I would have! :thumbsup:


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Brainwashed said:


> Where is Mervin saying that the Magic is more of a off groomer board and the Lynn where the Lynn is? The Lynn is actually set back .5" for powder.
> 
> Have you ridden these boards? If you had you would know the Magic is not squirelly and rips in the carve. :dunno:


Mervin says so pretty much in every single piece of marketing material that we have for our shops. Their reps are also consistent in pointing that the Magic is all-terrain machine meant for powder, ice, and broken snow - pretty much anything but groomers and park.
Yes, it can lock into a carve on hardpack because of its terrific edge hold (although those carves are nothing compared to the amazing pow carves and slashes that the board is capable of), but it is still squirelly on groomers and hardpack - a function of the amount of rocker in the profile and of the sidecut (plus a few other factors).

The Jamie Lynn is a completely different animal. It is more of a charging deck than one made for pow slashing than the Magic. And it has the setback for pow because it much less rocker in profile than the Magic (and the other Lib-Tech C2 decks) - incidentally that also makes it a much more stable board on groomers.

And yes, I have ridden these board - and some of our shops sell them. I have also owned my fair share of different Bananas. That would include a Magic if I did not have 2 other pow targeted already - because I sure as hell would not own for groomer use.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Brainwashed said:


> Those are tough questions.
> 
> In my opinion, and it should be noted that I completely disagree with HKTRDR who has replied multiple times in response to you, for your riding I would rank the boards your looking at like this:
> 
> ...


Well, we do seem disagree on the relative ranking of Lib-Tech boards for the guy asking the questions :huh:



Brainwashed said:


> I just got back from skipping work and riding all day in 14" of new. I am still loving the Magic for the riding I do, but again I don't go in the park. I wouldn't know what I would want from a snowboard even if I did go in there. I would just want the softest more rockery board and shortest board I could get.
> 
> I would steer your towards one of the shorter length Attack Banana or the TRS. I would say the Attack Banana as a first choice. And again, the shorter lengths. You would only want more length if you want float in the powder. For jibs and the parks I would run a shorter board.


And we agree on that, too :eusa_clap:



Brainwashed said:


> You really should demo all three boards though so you can feel what you think of them. Is there a way you can do that in Germany?
> 
> If you can't demo them, I really do think you would be happy with either the Attack or the TRS. I know I would have! :thumbsup:


And agree on that that, as well :yahoo:


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> GNU boards are just as well/badly constructed as Lib-Tech. Zero difference. Many people would consider the RC to be a slightly upgraded TRS.
> 
> I picked those two over the AB because the camber profile-flex combo is better suited to groomers IMO. The AB has more rocker in the profile which helps with float in powder and turn initiation/looseness. However, to avoid it becoming to squirrelly/unstable on hard (like the Magic, which has more rocker) Mervin increased the stiffness resulting in less playfulness, pop, andvbutterability.
> Accordingly, for mostly groomer riding I would go with the TRS/RC for playfulness and pop, while the AB is better for off-piste because of the float in powder and the extra stiffness.


This may be true, but it still should be noted that the AB is a solid performer on groomers and hardpack (dozens of reputable online reviews agree). The rocker/camber Ec2 Rocker/camber is a total blast and a killer option. I own it and I don't consider it "squirrely" in the least. Super-versatile board!


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Jeb said:


> This may be true, but it still should be noted that the AB is a solid performer on groomers and hardpack (dozens of reputable online reviews agree). The rocker/camber Ec2 Rocker/camber is a total blast and a killer option. I own it and I don't consider it "squirrely" in the least. Super-versatile board!


That was my point: Unlike the Magic, the AB is not nearly as squirrelly - in part because of the different camber profiles and in part because of the flex pattern. Unfortunately (and partially because oft these two factors), the board is not as playful as the TRS.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Mervin says so pretty much in every single piece of marketing material that we have for our shops. Their reps are also consistent in pointing that the Magic is all-terrain machine meant for powder, ice, and broken snow - pretty much anything but groomers and park.
> Yes, it can lock into a carve on hardpack because of its terrific edge hold (although those carves are nothing compared to the amazing pow carves and slashes that the board is capable of), but it is still squirelly on groomers and hardpack - a function of the amount of rocker in the profile and of the sidecut (plus a few other factors).
> 
> The Jamie Lynn is a completely different animal. It is more of a charging deck than one made for pow slashing than the Magic. And it has the setback for pow because it much less rocker in profile than the Magic (and the other Lib-Tech C2 decks) - incidentally that also makes it a much more stable board on groomers.
> ...


Okay, at this point your just making things up and I get really tired of people in active sports who do what you are doing. You haven't ridden any of these boards. If you had you would know that your 'shop knowledge' is incorrect. 

Also, Libtech does not market the Magic as a backcountry exclusive board. It's their dream quiver killer board as far as I can tell. Quote from Lib Tech's web page:
_"The Banana Magic Horsepower series is completely Volcanic Organic and features all basalt construction (no traditional fiberglass) BEANs top material, Columbian Gold eco timber core combined with deep sidecuts and “enhanced” banana. Lib Tech has tuned this combination of geometry, construction and flex to create incredible edge grip in all conditions especially ice, unbelievable float in powder and broken snow, effortless jibbing and damp quiet stability at speed. You carve, you jib, you carve, you jib."
_

Note the above key words: Carve, Stability, and Damp. Those are all terms you claim the Magic is not and claim Lib's markets says other wise.

I personally would appreciate it if you stopped confusing people about the Lib Tech line up. I cringe to think that you are in a shop telling people the things you are writing here. You also clearly don't read the marketing material you cite as gospel.

Regardless, anyone looking at these boards should go out of your way to ride them for yourself and see what _you_ think. Just because some guys online are yammering about something doesn't mean you should buy it blindly. I can guarantee that if you can carve a snowboard you will be very happy with the Attack or Magic Banana or the TRS. They are just different takes on the same ideal and all rip. :thumbsup:


----------



## walove (May 1, 2009)

if you dont know what your doing or your lazy, riding a board with lots of rocker on firm snow can be a challenge, as when your not on an edge they are quite loose. If you do know your doing on a snowboard, and you like to turn (<--liking to turn is becoming less popular with the new gen of snowboarders) boards with more rocker are really responsive and quick to turn. pair that with a stiffer layup and some edge tech and you have a board that loves to crank turns. I have the original re carnation of the gyrator with over a inch or rocker in the tip and 3/4" in the tail and the board carves like a dream.

boards with flat/flatter profiles give a stable ride, lifted contact points make it not catchy. a good board to cruise around, land tricks other groomer activities. not great for laying trenches. 

in summary

"good for groomers" doesn't mean "great turning / carving board"


side note, whats your opinion on the side cut on the magic banana. lib has it listed at 7m and "Numerically enhanced" 7m seems super tight. i like boards with a side cut around 8.5+.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Brainwashed said:


> Okay, at this point your just making things up and I get really tired of people in active sports who do what you are doing. You haven't ridden any of these boards. If you had you would know that your 'shop knowledge' is incorrect.
> 
> Also, Libtech does not market the Magic as a backcountry exclusive board. It's their dream quiver killer board as far as I can tell. Quote from Lib Tech's web page:
> _"The Banana Magic Horsepower series is completely Volcanic Organic and features all basalt construction (no traditional fiberglass) BEANs top material, Columbian Gold eco timber core combined with deep sidecuts and “enhanced” banana. Lib Tech has tuned this combination of geometry, construction and flex to create incredible edge grip in all conditions especially ice, unbelievable float in powder and broken snow, effortless jibbing and damp quiet stability at speed. You carve, you jib, you carve, you jib."
> ...


I was going to let this rest, but now you are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. I specifically mentioned that the Magic *is* damp and *does* hold a carve.
I only claimed that the Magic was not very stable on groomers - which Lib-Tech agrees with and acknowledges. The above statement stressing the the deck's virtues in "ice", "powder", and "broken snow" does not contradict this at all - note the absence of any reference to hardpack and groomers.



Brainwashed said:


> I personally would appreciate it if you stopped confusing people about the Lib Tech line up. I cringe to think that you are in a shop telling people the things you are writing here. You also clearly don't read the marketing material you cite.


I have tried to keep this as discussion of issues but you keep making this personal so here it goes: I could not care less what you "would appreciate" and what makes you "cringe". I have made fact-based arguments based on my experience riding these boards, the Lib-Tech materials that our shop receive, our communications with Lib-Tech and their representatives, and a number of other riders.

As I said before, some of our shops buy/sell Lib-Tech and the Quiksilver/Mervin guys certainly do not seem to have issues with how their line-up is presented.

This will be my last post on this, unless some real new facts/issues are raised (as opposed to personal attacks) or somebody else has a question.


----------



## DesireeM81 (Dec 6, 2012)

Thank you for posting this. I am a newer snowboarder getting my first set up and I got a GNU B-Nice with Banana Magic and Magnetraction and I am thankful to see the kinds of performance I can get on this board.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

walove said:


> side note, whats your opinion on the side cut on the magic banana. lib has it listed at 7m and "Numerically enhanced" 7m seems super tight. i like boards with a side cut around 8.5+.


That's also one thing I'd like to know.

I want to thank all of you for the most valuable input :bowdown:

Meanwhile I tied myself down to two Boards *and I already ordered both of them*: LibTech TRS 157 and LibTech Attack Banana 156. 

The only thing I need to do now is to make a wise decision between those two boards :dizzy:. Then I will return the other board.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

someguy said:


> That's also one thing I'd like to know.
> 
> I want to thank all of you for the most valuable input :bowdown:
> 
> ...


Is it possible to ride both boards? I think you have it narrowed down to the two best boards Lib makes for you riding style. It's like deciding which beer you like. Pilsner or a Porter. No one can tell you which one you will like best. 

As you can see as well, people will disagree as to each boards characteristics and how they handle. Just like hktrdr and I, I'm sure we would get along great in person but it's as if I like Porter and he likes Pilsner. We just need to agree to disagree - even though he's wrong. I kid, I kid! 

I know a decision like this is hard, I was just there. Just remember that you get to pick between two of the best boards made. The best thing to do would be to ride them back to back in the same conditions to choose one. If you can't ride the, go through all of the online reviews you can find and pick the one that sounds more like what your looking for and don't look back. Both of those boards are great and I honestly think you will enjoy either one. I honestly think I would have loved the TRS I nearly bought just as much as I like my Magic. They are just slightly different. :thumbsup:


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> GNU boards are just as well/badly constructed as Lib-Tech. Zero difference. Many people would consider the RC to be a slightly upgraded TRS.


You say there's zero difference, but the GNU Rider's choice has asymmetric sidecuts and a sintered base. The TRS and the Attack Banana both have an extruded base (TNT). 

What do you guys think about the asymmetric sidecut? Is it really a big advantage in your view? What do you think about the sintered <-> extruded bases?

Since the RC has these (potential) advantages and it costs the same as the TRS and the AB, I'm starting to think about whether or not the Rider's Choice would be a better board for me. I tied myself down to the TRS and the AB, but maybe I should reconsider this decision.

What do you guys think about these things, especially regarding the asymmetric sidecut and the sintered <-> extruded bases?


----------



## Jeb (Feb 26, 2011)

someguy said:


> You say there's zero difference, but the GNU Rider's choice has asymmetric sidecuts and a sintered base. The TRS and the Attack Banana both have an extruded base (TNT).
> 
> What do you guys think about the asymmetric sidecut? Is it really a big advantage in your view? What do you think about the sintered <-> extruded bases?
> 
> ...


So, you ordered the other two boards - and now you're gonna go with a Gnu? I think you're thinking too much. Take one of these things out on the snow and point it downhill. They're all going to work.


----------



## Weipim (Nov 20, 2012)

hey there, I was exactly in your situation at my local shop, hesitating between trs, AB and Gnu RC. I finally went with the RC just because I told myself, heck I am about to try new stuff and why not just push it further? Asym sidecut, the shape of RC with full mtx, and the 
c2btx is a jack of all trades to me and I've had only 3 days on them but really loves them to death. I paired them with ride delta mvmt, union asadachi and rome 390; among the bindings i especially liked asadachi, i never thought i can handle small jumps (not park kickers) this good, never fell on landing: which i was right, i am not good at jumps at all since I don't perform as good on the 390 boss with that deck. 

So down the road I guess the gnu rc is a really versatile board when combined with different bindings. I wish i could try trs or AB or even BM, but now I am damn happy with my setup and maybe next year i will grab a new deck again and this time it will be Lib for sure. Hope this helps.

btw, im 6' 180lbs and RC was 154.5


----------



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

Thanks for the review. This thing is sitting my house collecting dust right now because I tore my meniscus and had surgery a week ago. 7 weeks to go....

Anyway, I am looking forward to riding this thing, and really comparing to the rest of the Lib line, which I have ridden. 

I was hoping you would have had more experience with modern tech, because truth of the matter is, you could have bought a Proto, Magic, Happy Hour, Coda, etc, and it wouldn't have matter, they would have all blown away your last equipment and you would have loved all boards. 

Technology has just changed so much.

I have promised to review this bad boy this year, and will get it done in February it looks like. Still plenty of days that time of year.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

someguy said:


> You say there's zero difference, but the GNU Rider's choice has asymmetric sidecuts and a sintered base. The TRS and the Attack Banana both have an extruded base (TNT).


I said zero difference in construction between GNU and Lib-Tech in general (after you indicated a potential concern about GNU construction/preference for Lib-Tech), not specific to the RC and/or TRS.
Anyway, asymmetrical sidecut and sintered are not really construction issues, but board features. The fact that the RC has these features is exactly the reason that I described it as an upgraded TRS (which does not have them).



someguy said:


> What do you guys think about the asymmetric sidecut? Is it really a big advantage in your view? What do you think about the sintered <-> extruded bases?


Asym is a personal choice IMO. The theory behind the concept seems sound, but in practice some people see more of a benefit than others. For me personally it did not make much of a difference - in fact, I almost preferred riding the board the 'wrong way' around. There might be a learning curve as well :dunno:
Frankly, the base makes no discernible difference. The extruded vs. sintered argument is an oversimplification - a high-end extruded base (like on the Lib-Tech boards) can easily be superior to a cheap sintered one.



someguy said:


> Since the RC has these (potential) advantages and it costs the same as the TRS and the AB, I'm starting to think about whether or not the Rider's Choice would be a better board for me. I tied myself down to the TRS and the AB, but maybe I should reconsider this decision.
> 
> What do you guys think about these things, especially regarding the asymmetric sidecut and the sintered <-> extruded bases?


As I said above, base should not really be a factor and asym is a question of personal preference, so there is no 'objectively' superior board among these.
Personally, I like the RC (the previous version without pickle/asym, though) but the TRS also has a very loyal following. These decks are quite similar in the way they ride, so you would not go wrong with either one.
The AB is slightly different (in the way that I described in a previous post). The general market reception has not been as favorable as for the RC and TRS, but some people really like it. Personally I rate it below the RC and TRS in general, but for certain situations (e.g., frequent pow) it might indeed be the better board.


----------



## Weipim (Nov 20, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> I said zero difference in construction between GNU and Lib-Tech in general (after you indicated a potential concern about GNU construction/preference for Lib-Tech), not specific to the RC and/or TRS.
> Anyway, asymmetrical sidecut and sintered are not really construction issues, but board features. The fact that the RC has these features is exactly the reason that I described it as an upgraded TRS (which does not have them).
> 
> 
> ...


hey man I followed u guys discussion on and off and I have to say I couldn't agree with you more on this part. the built quality of a product needs to be carefully evaluated and not be mixed with features. That being said, a basic deck can be a higher quality product than a product of market gimmicks. But on the other side, personal preference does weigh a lot in snowboarding and maybe just that "steroided trs" aka gnu rc may gain favor in a lot of people (including myself) and leads us to believe it is superior than the "basic trs". 

i just think both of you holds a point and there's really no need to bash each other


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Weipim said:


> hey man I followed u guys discussion on and off and I have to say I couldn't agree with you more on this part. the built quality of a product needs to be carefully evaluated and not be mixed with features. That being said, a basic deck can be a higher quality product than a product of market gimmicks. But on the other side, personal preference does weigh a lot in snowboarding and maybe just that "steroided trs" aka gnu rc may gain favor in a lot of people (including myself) and leads us to believe it is superior than the "basic trs".
> 
> i just think both of you holds a point and there's really no need to bash each other


No bashing here - he asked some questions and I gave him some answers. In the process he misinterpreted something I wrote (maybe I could have been clearer) and I corrected that misconception. No issue.
All in the spirit of being friendly and (hopefully) helpful.


----------



## Dpforlife (Oct 25, 2012)

Brainwashed said:


> I really like what I see here on these forums and thought I would chime in.
> 
> I'm stoked about getting a new board after many years of riding one that I thought I loved, and wanted to share my findings in the hope someone else gets value from my opinions. The Banana Magic is a _very_ expensive deck and I wanted to share my thoughts so anyone considering one would have more information. While there are a few good (and positive) reviews of the Banana Magic online, there aren't a ton of reviews on the Magic relative to other Libs and wanted to post my thoughts in case someone else found some value here.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the review you just proved I made the right choice and getting the magic!!


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

Comparing the LibTech TRS and the GNU Rider's Choice I found that I like the RC more because of the softer flex, the asymmetric sidecut and the sintered base. But one thing that made me wonder is the different shapes of the noses and tails. The TRS has the nose and tail bent up a whole lot more compared to the RC. I started to think and I can imagine that a stronger bent up nose and tail only has positive effects. With a higher bent up nose you should have better float in powder and the nose shouldn't dive in so easily, right? And also with a higher bent up nose/tail you should have better stability while doing hard bent nose and tail presses / manuals without falling over. 
Can you tell me why the RC doesn't have the nose and tail bent up so much? What is the advantage of this shape? I think this is a major disadvantage, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

No opinions about that?


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

The highly scooped nose is more for riding deep snow and powder. It provides more float. I think it's a desirable feature for a board to have.

The flatter nose and tail is more for park and pipe where you would want your board to be more consistent in shape. 

Is just depends on where what you want to do with the board.


----------



## someguy (Dec 5, 2012)

I thought that the TRS is especially preferred by pipe riders but still it has this highly scooped nose.. but maybe mostly other features cause this.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

Back on topic of the 2013 Banana Magic. :thumbsup:

I still love the board. We are having a stretch of no new snow now for a couple trips up to the hill and it does amazing well on hard pack and ice. I think I have 13 days on it so far give or take. It might be in my head, but the board feels like it might be softening up and breaking in a little and becoming a little more forgiving with slow speed riding, but then I might be getting more used to the boards stiffness though too. I felt that it forgiving as slow speeds before I think due to it's rocker profile, but it feels slightly more so today if anything.

For what it's worth I still would never call this board "squirelly". I feel that it's stable and confidence inspiring at speeds that make your eyes water inside your goggles. The side cut is aggressive though, so while the board is stable at speeds the side cut likes to really make a hard carve. If you know the difference between a "slalom" side cut and a "GS" side cut, the Magic is definitely on the tight turning "slalom" side of things. This means that if you lean it over to carve it will turn NOW and make _extremely _tight arcing turns in a carve. At very high speeds this can equate to the board feeling like it turns too quickly in a carve if that's not your style of riding. I used to race slalom way... way, back and enjoy the side cut quite a bit but it might not be your style of riding. I would rather just use less of the side cut in a tun by not committing to a full carve if I choose to rather than not have enough when I want to make tight turn.

As to the board being "chatty" as high speeds. I think what some reviews are refering to is that the nose and tail actually will leave the snow slighly and "thrum" on hard pack (icey) conditions occasionally. I've heard rockered and even cambered ski's do this as well, and certain alpine boards used to do at high speeds when I ran plate bindings when I was running on Mt. Hood's glacier in cold hard pack conditions. I don't feel that it's any thing to be concerned about. The sound is nothing like the high speed nose flapping and shakes I would get from soft freestyle boards at high speed back in the 90's and early 2000's and I don't feel that the "thrumming" that rarely occurs with the Magic is anything to be concerned about. It just means your hauling ass. 

Overall I still feel that the Magic is great well rounded board, and I am still super happy with the deck. It's nice to get compliments on it from guys that know what they are doing on the mountain each time I go up. I actually feel fortunate to own it.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

For what it's worth these reviewers on thegoodride.com agree with my impressions of the Magic. Kind of a nice validation of my opinion that I've stated in this thread. :thumbsup:

If your looking for a powerful feeling, stout all around "quiver killer" type board that can do nearly anything during the season the Banana Magic is well worth checking out. 

I'm looking forward to winter!

Link:
Lib Tech Banana Magic Review by The Good RideThe Good Ride

Review info:
Size 152, 157 and 158W
Days:3
Conditions: Mainly hard snow with some patches of softer snow
Riders: James, Peter, Kyle, Stephen
Setup- James Peter and Kyle rode centered around 23″ wide 15 front -15 back. Stephen rode the wide at about 24″ wide Centered 12 front -12 back.
Boots: Burton Ion, Burton Imperial, Burton Ruler, DC Judge, Nike Kaiju
Bindings
There is the skate banana, the Attack Banana and the Banana Magic. The only thing that all three of these boards have in common is “Banana” in the name. We found this to be it’s own kind of ride but the only board I can really think of that it’s a little bit similar to is the Lib Tech TRS. They both had that stable all mountain twin (all mountain freestyle) kind of feel that fits a wide variety of riders. If you are looking to go big on the mountain or in the park this will be a good board if you are ok with the excessive price tag.
On Snow Feel: So this seems to be a unique hybrid rocker in the line that they call Enhanced Banana. It has a lot of rocker between the feet and then transitions to a very mellow eliptical camber that is almost flat. What is weird is it feels almost as stable as the C2 Power BTX rides we have tried and didn’t feel like the Attack Banana. In soft snow it feels stable and in harder snow it can feel a little bit loose but less than most hybrid rocker boards we have tried. Maybe it’s the crazy big ass MTX bumps between the feet holding it in place or maybe it flattens out really well under pressure. Who knows. The cool thing is it’s mostly stable. It has a very aggressive but pretty forgiving feel and that is pretty hard to accomplish. It’s not really about buttering and jibbing as much as it’s about, exceptional edge hold, picking up speed on the mountain reg or switch, hitting the pipe and going bigger on medium to large jumps.
Powder: We didn’t get any deep powder but you can tell this is going to plain well in powder with this design and feel pretty floaty for a Twin. If you like to ride switch in powder then you will really like this board. If you like to set it back you might like Jamie Lynn C2 Power BTX Phoenix or other Mervin boards with a set back stance better.
Turn Initiation and Carving- This is not going to be the easy edge to edge ride that many hybrid camber boards have. When you flex the board it would feel like it’s pretty challenging but the hybrid rocker allows the Banana Magic to provide moderately easy edge to edge transitioning. It just takes a little bit more work than most hybrid rocker boards and we like that. Short radius turns are pretty quick but if you aren’t a solid rider it could be a little more work to skid your turns than other hybrid rocker shapes. Medium to wide radius turns engage the mellow camber and make the ride feel pretty good. It keeps it fun and gives a little return out of the turn. Drawing this out into a carve is pretty fun. It’s not that springy feel that C3 offers out of the turn but it’s a nice compromise between having a forgiving floaty board vs. super great carving board. Just about any kind of turn is predictable and competent. You can lay into a carve better in harder conditions than you can with other boards because of it’s massive MTX between the feet.
Speed: This has a fast base, aggressive flex and a pretty damp feel to it. It’s not in the top of the tops in terms of speed but it’s really good. It keeps it’s speed rather well in the flats and it’s fun to haul ass regular or switch.
Uneven Terrain: Usually this type of ride and flex isn’t very easy to negotiate mogul like terrain at slow speeds but this does pretty well. It can handle crowded end of the day snow pretty well.
Edge Hold: This has a different Magnetraction side cut compared to any other Mervin board out there. The Magnetraction is massive between the feet and then almost non existent as it extends out towards the tip/tail. It grips like the old camber magnetraction boards and gave me (editior) the feel way back when when they introduced the first Magnetraction Board called the “magnetraction”. It grips strong between the feet and it’s a great ice board.
Flex: This feels borderline stiff torsionally and longitudinally. It’s not a mellow flex.
Switch: The same either way. It’s meant to be ridden both ways. (insert joke here)
Jibbing- Nah….it wasn’t friendly to us but it can be done if you are a good rider. The flex is pretty stiff here but it’s fine for sliding across non technical boxes and hitting bonks.
Pipe: This is one of the better pipe boards in the line. Super Grippy and aggressive while still being relatively forgiving. It drives from wall to wall well and feels at home in the pipe.
Jumps: We felt other boards were more poppy than the Banana Magic in Mervin’s line but you sacrifice a little pop for stability at speed. Still we had no problem generating our own air around the mountain and launching kickers in the park was fun as well.
All in all this board isn’t going to fit the description that a wide scope of riders describe but some will find this a match made in heaven. You know who you are. The rider that likes to push your riding regular or switch but still have a bit of a forgiving nature in case you push it too hard or feel mellow. It’s one of those rare aggressive boards that doesn’t require your A game at all times.


----------



## Brainwashed (Nov 28, 2012)

Since this is becoming somewhat of a repository of Banana Magic reviews here
is another well worded Banana Magic review I just came across:

2012 Lib Tech Banana Magic Review

Size: 157cm
Stance: 23.5″, 18 negative 12 regular
Shape: Banana rocker but with very mild camber zone under feet, not pronounced enough to be called a C2 banana, but not really a banana.
Bindings: Union Contacts
Dave’s stats: 6′, 210 lbs
Leo’s stats: 5’9″ 180 lbs

Flex: Lib uses basalt instead of fiberglass to go along with the “eco-friendly” theme that is taking the snowsurfboard world by storm. The Banana Magic is pretty stiff, probably 7 out of 10 but a fairly stiff 7. For those of you that have ridden the T.Rice, it is slightly less stiff than that board.

Ollie/Pop: Tons of pop.

Handling: The Magic was exceptionally stable at high speed and responsive, quick to roll over edge to edge. Magnetraction actually does work, although it’s a little over-hyped. It does give you noticeable performance everywhere but it isn’t going to turn that bulletproof blue ice in to powder, you still need to know how to handle yourself.

Leo says: I do agree with David that magne-traction isn’t going to turn ice into powder, but it is the best option for these types of conditions. I’d actually prefer it over my positive cambered stick. I also believe the Magic has a more mellow magne-traction. The Banana Magic’s edge to edge power is something else. For the second year in a row of my demoing, it is the best handling board out of the bunch. Short, medium, and long carves are all very fun to engage on the Magic. It’s definitely not the fastest stick I’ve been on, but fast enough.

Jibs/Playfulness: This board wasn’t what I’d call “playful”, it was meant to be ridden pretty hard. That said for a stiff all-mountain deck it would be forgiving for an advanced or advanced-intermediate rider. You could probably take it in the park and I’m sure it will excel on the jump line. You could jib with this board but I don’t know why you’d want to.

Leo says: I didn’t jump with this board this year, but I did last year. Nothing special though, I’d say it was a 10′er. Popped off a lot of rollers and some bigger moguls. Handled very well and wasn’t washy.

Price: Not for the faint of heart, this board should retail somewhere around $700 placing it firmly in to the stratosphere of snowboard pricing, but mirroring an industry-wide trend (more on this later) towards more expensive, premium boards. Click on the "Buy Now" button to compare prices.
Dave’s Take: I would’ve preferred a stiffer binding pairing but anyways this board was the only 5-star deck I rode on day 1 of Test Fest; a blast to ride and very responsive but is definitely geared towards the more advanced riders. The magentraction gave you great edge hold and it carved like a dream. I feel like this is more of a freeride board than an “all mountain freestyle” but if bombing steeps and hitting natural features is your thing, this board is gonna do it for you.

Leo’s Take: The Banana Magic was my favorite board last year and I was highly anticipating riding it again this year. I even told David we can’t be friends anymore if he didn’t like this board. Even with the horrible Union Contacts on this stick, I thoroughly enjoyed it and gave it my only 5 star rating this year. If you are looking to buy this stick, do yourself a favor and put at least mid-stiff bindings on it. Personally, I’d slap some Rome Targas or Ride SPIs on it. By the way, make sure you know how to ride before hopping on the Magic. It’s for the advanced intermediate and up.


----------

