Hello and welcome to my Lib Tech Off Ramp review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Off Ramp as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Off Ramp a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Lib Tech Off Ramp
Price: $549
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Medium Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 84.4/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Of the 33 current model all-mountain freestyle snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Off Ramp ranked 17th out of 33
Overview of the Off Ramp's Specs
Check out the tables for the Off Ramp's specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN-FREESTYLE
PRICE:
$549 - BUYING OPTIONS
$579 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER - But mostly camber. GNU's "C3 Camber". And really it just looks and feels more like Traditional Camber than Hybrid Rocker
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
SINTERED | Lib Tech's "Eco Subliminated Sintered Base"
weight:
Felt A LITTLE HEAVIER THAN normal
Camber Height:
11mm*
*while hybrid rockers can often be harder to determine, this was taken right in the middle of the board and the camber profile on this was basically traditional camber, even though it's supposed to technically have some subtle rocker between the feet. I couldn't detect it though.
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
148 | 250 | 85+ | 40+ |
151 | 251 | 95+ | 45+ |
154 | 253 | 110+ | 50+ |
157 | 253 | 120+ | 55+ |
157W | 265 | 125+ | 60+ |
Who is the Off Ramp Best Suited To?
The Off Ramp is best suited to those who like air and want a board with good pop but also want to be able to ride relatively fast and lay down decent carves on the groomers at times too.
A great option for those who like to get air (and spin) but also get a fair few icy days, as it has great icy edge hold. Didn't get much of that to test in, but based on the Off Ramp's predecessor (Box Knife) and other similar Lib Tech boards and the feel of the Off Ramp (particularly earlier in the day), it should be really good in icy conditions.
Would work best as a quiver board alongside a more directional/powder oriented board for powder days - or could be a one-board-quiver if you don't see powder or its never that deep.
Not for beginners, but easy going enough for intermediate riders, IMO.
The Off Ramp in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Off Ramp is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Lib Tech Off Ramp 2024, 154 (253mm waist width)
Date: March 24, 2023
Conditions:
Snowing light to moderate throughout day. Low cloud. Visibility not too bad considering. 70-75%.
Temperature was -3°C (27°F) and -9°C (16°F) with wind in morning. -2°C (28°F) and -4°C (25°F) in the afternoon. 10kph (6mph) southerly wind morning and no wind in afternoon.
24 hour snow: 7" (18cm)*
48 hour snow: 7" (18cm)
7 day snow: 7" (18cm)
*when I got there - would have been a good couple more inches during the day.
On groomer: Firm underneath to start with a good layer of fresh on top. Then got progressively softer and deeper.
Off groomer: Plenty of fresh pow!
Set up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 21.9" (555mm)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Front Insert: 263mm (10.4")
Width at Back Insert: 263mm (10.4")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Control Board: Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, 157
Weight: 6lbs 10oz (3000 grams)
Weight per cm: 19.48 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.43 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. While the Off Ramp was a little heavier than average on the scales, but only felt slightly heavier than normal on snow.
Powder
Good day to test in powder. Nothing like super epic or anything, but plenty to play around in. The Off Ramp, as expected, wasn't great. It felt pretty sinky at times and required a strong lean back onto the back leg. It was fine for what we had and because I was testing it for everything I wasn't in the powder for an extended period of time, but in deeper powder and all day in powder, it would get really fatiguing and have you nose diving all over the place, I suspect.
This thing is basically traditional camber and with a true twin shape and centered stance, there's not much going for it in powder.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Really decent on a carve. That predominantly camber profiles helps to bite the edge in and rip carves. It has it's limits as to how fast a carve it can handle, but for moderate speed carves, it's really fun.
Ease of Turning/Slashing: Pretty easy to initiate turns on this board. While it is basically full camber (technically C3, but I couldn't detect any rocker between the feet at all, either when riding or when inspecting it), it's got a pretty easy going flex, particularly torsionally and the size helped too. But you typically size down a bit for this tyle of board.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Nice and nimble. Not lightning agility at slow speeds, but still really decent.
Catchiness: Felt slightly more catchy than the Head Space which I also rode that day - and than my control board, but overall nothing super catchy or anything.
Speed
Was fast enough for a twin and up to certain speeds it had good stability. But there was a limit to how fast it could go before starting to feel unstable.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Not invincible for crud, but decent enough.
Bumps: Decent enough in terms of weaving between things, but in powder not great as it feels sinky. Particularly if you're looking to pop off or drop off things into powder, it will be challenging keeping that nose afloat.
Jumps
This is where this board excels the most, IMO. It was super fun to jump and could handle a wide range of different types of jumps.
Pop: It had pretty easy to access pop (some of the pop in it was effortless and the amount that you could get with very little effort was quite good) and then when really loading it up, it gave back even more. Like heaps of it! I measured the camber in the Off Ramp at 11mm (which is really pronounced!), so it was no surprise how poppy this board was.
It is a heavier board, so you don't necessarily get full value for that pop, but it's still really poppy overall.
Approach: Great balance between being both decently stable and decently easy to speed check and make adjustments.
Landing: Stomper! Could just fully stomp landings. That extra weight helped here.
Side-hits: Really good. Decently easy to extract pop and decent maneuverability combing to make this really fun for sidehits. And when you get the chance to load it up, you can really send it.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Really good for all types of jumps. It's stable enough for bigger jumps, but works well with tighter side-hits too.
Switch
Really good, as you'd expect. Transitions weren't completely catch-free, but also nothing super catchy. And being a true twin felt very similar riding in either direction.
Spins
Great for setting up and landing switch. Great pop. Not much length in tip/tail which helped too. The only downside was that you did notice that extra bit of weight on spins. But it's not super heavy or anything, so it wasn't a biggie.
Jibbing
Not too bad. Not ideal, but most competent jibbers would be fine with this on boxes/rails.
Butters
A little bit of effort required to press the nose and tail, but not that much really. Locks into butters nicely and feels really consistent in nose and tail (unsurprisingly, given the nose and tail are identical).
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Jumps | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Switch | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Spins | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Butters | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Jibbing | 3 | 3/5 |
| Crud etc | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Trees | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Pow | 2 | 2/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 84.4/100 |
The Off Ramp is a snappy, poppy board that has a bit of burliness to it. It's not super stiff or anything but it is basically full camber and it's just on the aggressive side of the scale. It's not ultra aggressive or anything - not enough to shift it into the aggressive all-mountain freestyle category, but on the more aggressive end of this category.
It's at its best when getting air - has great pop and stomps landings. But can also handle a bit of speed and lay down some decent carves too.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Off Ramp, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other all-mountain-freestyle snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Off Ramp compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hello Nate,
My son has an Off Ramp (that he loves) but needs new bindings. Which bindings do you reccomend for and 157w Off Ramp, for freestyle, park -jumps, rails, sidehits and speed? Rider 6’2, size 12 boots, 78 kgs. He rides all year round. He has 3-4 yo Bent Metal Axtions now that he likes them very much, but they are really worn and needs changing. So far I have thought about BM Axtions or Transfers and Union Ultra or Force. He uses Vans Infuse boots.
Thanks for any thoughts.
Hi Harald, thanks for your message.
I just tested the Bent Metal Transfer and Axtions last week and I would say the Transfers are a bit too stiff for the Off Ramp – but the Axtion’s are a good match, so if he wanted to go back to those, that’s definitely an option. The Ultra would also be a good match, IMO and I would go Ultra over force, given that he’s in the park a lot. They have better board feel than the Force, in my experience.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Thank you. Makes sense, and both the transfers and axtions have gotten stiffer over the last seasons so good to get the feedback on the current ones. Ultras look good, but the only thing is the lack of forward lean… I wish they would put a forward lean adjuster on them 🙂
Hey Harald. Yeah, I agree, would like to see a FLAD on the Ultras – I recently tested the 2026 model and still no FLAD, so we’ll have to wait until at least the 2027 model. The middle of the Ultra’s highback is quite flexible, so I’m guessing it’s hard to put a FLAD in there.
Hi, i got this board on 151 cm and i noticed that on one side is longer with 0.5 cm from nose/tail to the last/fisrt inserts for the bindings, is that normal ? I have a Gnu carbon credit and is the same thing as well…
Hi Denis, thanks for your message.
Apologies for the slow response. Hopefully this isn’t too late to help. Have been hectically running around testing gear and falling way behind here.
I measure from the stance width, rather than the first/last inserts, but I would imagine it should still be the same deal. With the Off Ramp 154 I measured 49cm to the tail (from reference binding holes) and 49cm to the nose – so an even distance. This was with a stance width of 55.5cm. This only comes to 153.5cm, but there’s often a little bit of a discrepancy, and I usually round those measurements as well – e.g. if it looks like 49.2cm, I’d typically just record 49cm. Note that I also measure along the contour of the board, rather than in a straight line, but when it’s a true twin it shouldn’t matter anyway, as the rise in the nose and the tail should be the same anyway. So it’s interesting that it’s out for yours and that it’s the same on the Carbon Credit as well, which is also supposed to be a true twin, as far as I am aware. I haven’t measured the Carbon Credit, so I don’t know if the one I was on was like that or not. But given that it’s an asym-twin, I would have assumed it would be true twin anyway. The only thing that would make sense with that one is if the inserts were placed in the wrong place. I think contacting Mervin would be your best bet to see if they could shed any more info on it.
Hey, thanks, yes i contacted Mervin, i`m still talking to them to see what is going on, i tried all the measurements, all indicates that one side is a little bit longer (0.5 cm). I posted in a group of snowboarders ass well and some of them said that even if it s a true twin it has a side a little bit longer/shorter so… i don`t know xD. Thanks anyway !
Hey Denis. Thanks for the update. Would be curious to hear what Mervin says, if you think of it at the time. If it has a side that’s a little bit longer, then it’s not a true twin! It’s a directional twin. I can assure you there are many boards that are identical length to nose and tail and everything is actually literally a mirror. We’re not riding skis (where twins often aren’t actual twins). In my experience at least 95% of boards that say true twin are in fact true twin.
Here is the update, that`s what Mervin said: “The measure is not that off, and you can compensate the difference by mounting your bindings back of the difference needed.” So… i don`t know, maybe they are not exactly perfect length 🙂
Hey Denis
That answer sounds to me like they placed the inserts incorrectly but don’t want to say it outright. In any case, if you have bindings that can make that kind of micro adjustment, you could center it up. But not all bindings will allow you to adjust by just 5mm. If yours can, then you should be good. If not, then you could live with the 5mm setback (which is very subtle), assuming that the distance from nose to inserts is longer than the distance from tail to inserts and not the other way around. Even though it’s just 5mm, I don’t think I would want to be set forward, even a subtle amount like that.