2013 Lib Tech Travis Rice Pro Snowboard Review

You might have heard of this guy Travis Rice he’s only been in some monster snowboard movies (Art of Flight, Deeper, Neverland, That’s It That’s All…) and he put together the most innovative yet somehow still back-to-the-roots snowboarding competition with the Red Bull Supernatural last year, so yeah he’s kind of a big deal. Lib Tech makes his pro model snowboard and here’s how it stands up.

2013 lib tech T Rice Pro w Flow NX2 bindings

2013 lib tech T Rice Pro w Flow NX2 bindings

Size: 157
Shape: Lib’s C2BTX which is center reverse with camber zones extending from inserts out to the contact points
Bindings: Flow NX2
Stats: Dave 6′ 210 lbs stance at ~24″ regs, 15/-15
Conditions: hardpack, semi-firm groomers not a patch of ice to be found anywhere, well groomed boarder-x course, beginner park features about 30 degrees.

Flex:

Lib rates this one a 7/10 and I’d say that’s probably pretty accurate, it’s a predictable all-mountain flex, stiffer through the nose & tail, some give in the center with just the right amount of torsional give.

Ollie/Pop: 

The T-Rice is one of those boards that excels in the pop department, twin shape and flex so it pops both ways pretty consistently and the outside camber zones give a good platform to ollie from. Comparable to the Ride DH2? I’d have to put them side-by-side but I’m thinking yes. On the landings the T-Rice is definitely stable enough to tackle the man-sized jumps in your local terrain park or the natural hits, drops & gaps that you might find outside the boundary line.

Jibs/Playfulness:

I was not really expecting this to be a jib-tastic board and that was true after riding it. You’ll be able to spread those pow butters but on the groomers the presses and stuff are going to be more difficult.Can you muscle it through some jibs here and there and the occasional rail? Yes. Advanced riders will probably get more mileage in this department than beginners/intermediates who will find it not forgiving enough.

Handling:

The T-Rice is one of those boards that a lot of people talk about and a lot of people rave about, with good reason. This was my first time riding it but it lived up to the hype which is more than I can say about some boards. Stability at speed? Check. Damp enough to absorb chunder and chop? Check. Ability to rail carves on hardpack? Check. Fifth gear? Checkmate this was one of, if not the, fastest board I rode at Test Fest (~57mph). Whatever you want from an all-mountain board the T-Rice delivered.

Price: The T-Rice retails around $550 which is a about industry average for a higher-end board. Click on the "Buy Now" button to compare prices.

Summing it up:

One of the few boards that gets the elusive “5-star” rating from yours truly. Great pop, insane-o speed, carves and handles like a dream. If I was looking for a bigger all-mountain deck for drops, jumps, gaps, and pow the Lib Tech T-Rice would definitely be on the short list.  Recommended for intermediate to advanced riders.

FacebookGoogle+TwitterRedditLinkedInEmail
10 Comments
    • The NX2′s were pre-production demos; they have definite potential but as they were then, they took just as long (or longer) than traditional strap bindings to get in to, which kind of defeats the purpose of rear-entry bindings unless you’re a Flow fanboy, sure there is a comfort factor to the strap but many traditional bindings have made giant leaps forward in tech & comfort the last decade anyways so that dreaded arch pinch isn’t as common as it used to be. I think they might have these buttoned up by now, but try and demo a pair if you can, or wait until you can find some reviews of them based on production models.

  1. I am surprised you went with a 157 for your height, dont you think the 161.5 would suite you better? I am guessing that was the only size to demo…….

  2. Pingback: All mountain freestyle setup - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums

  3. Hey,
    Thanks for the review! I’m looking into getting this board, but I’m not real sure on the size. I’m 5′ 8″‘and range in weight from 165-185, (usually closer to the heavy end:-) I have always enjoyed freestyle and jumping, messing around on natural features, but the past few years I’ve completely lost interest in rails and jibbing. That being said, I think I have a freestyle approach to really riding the whole mountain and need stability when I want to charge. It’s not like I’m hitting the jumbo line of park jumps, bu I’d like to be able to anyways. I’m stuck between the 155(new release) and 157. The thing is that the effective edge on the 155 is only .5 cm longer than the 153, so will it really only ride .5 cm bigger? And will 157 be too big to enjoy a bit of goofing around on? Keep in mind, I do have a burton Joystick for more park riding if I choose to do so. That’s about all my questions…sorry for rambling on. Btw, I wear a 9.5 and I’ve been riding 3- 4 times a year for about 15 years with one 30 day season thrown in there.
    I appreciate any feedback you could give me.

    • You could really go either way… I have gravitated more towards shorter boards over the last few years but I also spend maybe 50% of my time in the park, and rarely need a pow-specific or longer board here in the midwest, so for me, the little bit of added playfulness on the shorter size is usually a tradeoff I’m willing to make. I don’t think you could go wrong with the 157 especially if you’re not using it for a rails deck, but personally I’d go with the 55.

      I wouldn’t worry too much about the contact length. The 155 has same contact length as the TRS in 159, and is longer than the Skate Banana 156 ( both of which have a shallower sidecut depth). Keep in mind also that if the 155 uses the same blunted shape, it’s going to ride effectively like a longer deck anyways — after all a 155 blunt is basically a 157 or 158 with the tips trimmed down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect with Facebook

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>