Hello and welcome to my Lib Tech T Rice Golden Orca review.
In this review I will take a look at the Golden Orca as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Golden Orca a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and also see how it compares with other Freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Lib Tech Golden Orca
Price: $849 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Mid-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel: Mid-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 85.9/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Of the 27 current model freeride snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Golden Orca ranked 13th= out of 27
Overview of the Golden Orca’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Golden Orca’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
FREERIDE
PRICE:
$849 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER
HYBRID ROCKer - Lib Tech's "C2X" camber
SHAPE:
setback stance:
SETBACK 1" (25mm)
BASE:
Sintered | Lib Tech's "Eco Subliminated Sintered Base"
weight:
Felt a touch heavier than normal
Camber Height:
5mm - but harder to measure on a hybrid rocker board
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
150 | 260 | 130+ | 59+ |
153 | 263 | 140+ | 64+ |
155 | 264 | 150+ | 68+ |
157 | 265 | 150+ | 68+ |
159 | 266 | 155+ | 70+ |
161 | 267 | 155+ | 70+ |
164 | 268 | 155+ | 70+ |
Who is the Golden Orca Most Suited To?
The Golden Orca is best suited to someone with a full wallet! But in all seriousness, it's a really good option for someone looking for a freeride board that's versatile enough to be your daily driver, even if you're wanting to incorporate a bit of freestyle in your riding.
It does well across most factors, while being particularly good in powder.
It's not a super easy board to ride and it feels at it's best with some speed under it, so you'll want to be relatively advanced to get the most out of it, and even to properly enjoy it. It takes some effort to ride, but when you put the effort in, it does reward you.
THE Golden Orca IN MORE DETAIL
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Golden Orca is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Lib Tech T Rice Golden Orca 2023, 153 (263mm waist width)
Date: March 22, 2023 (and again March 24, 2023 to get it in some powder)
Conditions
Literally not a cloud in the sky. Sunny and, of course, perfect visibility.
Temperature was around 4°C (39°F) - and 3°C (37°F) with wind chill in morning and 5°C (41°F) (and 4°C (39°F) with wind) in the afternoon. So super warm.
SW winds morning and afternoon at 5kph (3 mph) morning and 10kph (6 mph) in the afternoon.
24 hour snow: 0" (0cm)
48 hour snow: 0" (0cm)
7 day snow: 0" (0cm)
On groomer: Hard and borderline icy in spots but soft borderline slushy in others. Got softer and more slushy as the day went on. But to start with had some icy patches.
Off groomer: Crunchy and icy in spots. Soft patches, which increased as the day went on.
Set Up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 21″ (530mm)
Stance Setback: Setback 1" (25mm)
Width at Inserts: 10.8" (274mm) at front insert and 10.7" (272mm) at back insert.
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Response ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita, M
Weight: 6lbs 11oz (3040grams)
Weight per cm: 19.87 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.71 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. The Golden Orca was a heavier than average on the scales and felt that a bit on snow too. But only slightly heavier than normal. It's a wide board, so you size down - and grams/surface area would likely be normal.
Powder
Had no powder to test in the first day I rode it, but then we got a good 7" (18cm) a couple of days later, so decided to take it out again. And it didn't disappoint. Felt great in powder.
No surprise really, given it's shape & taper and with the rocker in the middle of the board all helping with float.
Carving
Did well on aggressive carves. Whilst there's more rocker in the middle vs Lib Tech's C3 boards, it did surprisingly well to hold deeper carves at high speeds.
Turning
Ease of Turns/Slashing: You've got to work a bit for your turns on this board. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's hard to turn it, but it's not effortless either. Prefers a straighter turn as apposed to a tighter turn.
Maneuverability at slow speeds (nimbleness): While initiating turns took some effort, particularly sharper turns, once putting that energy in it was actually decently quick edge-to-edge, but not effortlessly agile.
Catchiness: Felt like you could catch an edge if you got too lazy. Quite stiff torsionally. But nothing super catchy or anything.
Speed
Was nice and stable at speed and felt at it's best when riding fast vs riding slow.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Felt good smashing through chop/crud/chunder. Board felt pretty damp overall.
Trees/Bumps: Because you ride it shorter and because, with a little effort, it's pretty quick edge-to-edge, it's actually pretty decent. Preferring straighter turns holds it back from being amazing though.
Jumps
Pretty decent overall.
Pop: It's not super easy to access the pop - as is the case with most stiffer boards. But it's not super hard either. And total pop is decent.
Approach: Pretty stable for faster approaches. And not too hard to adjust, but not super easy to adjust either.
Landing: Decent overall. And enough tail you can get away with tail heavy landings to an extent.
Side-hits: Not ideal, but fine.
Switch
Transitions weren't ideal, with a slightly catchy feeling. But when through the transition, it actually felt really decent riding switch. Better than I expected. And this is more double ender than the regular Orca, so upon reviewing the specs, not a big surprise it felt pretty good.
Butters
Easier to press than I was expecting. Still certainly got to put some weight/effort into the tip/tail to get them to press. Is more double ender than original Orca too, so a more balanced feel - but still some tail and tip difference.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.5 | 22.5/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.9/100 |
The Golden Orca is a more versatile board than I was expecting. Whilst it's not anything super playful or easy to ride, it's not super hard to ride either and it's the kind of board that rewards you when you ride it more aggressively.
It doesn't really have any major weaknesses, except perhaps the price tag.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
Check out the links below for more info on the Golden Orca, where to buy or if you are researching prices or available sizes.
If your keen to check out some other Freeride options or to see how the Golden Orca compares to other freeride decks check out the link below.
Hi Nate,
Wonder some advice for golden orca if possible. If im Size US 8.5 EU41 26.5 ThirtyTwo TM2 boot with 60kg and 176cm tall.
Will the 150 golden orca with 260 waist width still too much for me? I used to ride around 255 waist width for regular board.
Thank you.
Hi Damon, thanks for your message.
Without knowing the length of the 255 waist board you rode, it’s hard to say, but generally, yes, I would say it’s big for you, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 151 and with US8.5 boots, I would size down on this board. With the 150 being the smallest size, I get why you’re seeing if the 150 would work.
Short answer, I’d say too big, but if you could also let me know the length of the regular board you used to ride, how you found it and if you’ve ridden narrower or shorter boards than it to have a comparison to. Also, if you could let me know how you’d be using the Golden Orca. E.g. daily driver or part of a quiver as a powder board?
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for your reply.
My usual board length is around 154-157,and with around 252-256 waist width I find it quite nimble enough for me to initiate turn/ side switch.
Besides, I tried something like the ”152 Jones hovercraft 2.0 2024/25 (Camber) (waist 259)” & ”156 Burton fish 2018 (Flat to rocker) (waist 260) before, which both of them feel a bit planted/ locked in to the ground, but still manageable with more foot work & efforts.
Am not sure if the hybrid rocker shape of golden rocker could counterbalance part of the waist length, so I can still sort of go for it with style of some all mtn + part freeride + bit freestyle.
I aim for a versatile/ all rounder board at the moment as also quite like the new top sheet of golden orca.
Thank you so much.
Hi Damon, thanks for the extra info. My instinct is still that you’d likely find it too big to be optimal, but given you typically ride 154-157 and sounds like you haven’t had issues, you might get away with it.
Hi Nate! Stuck between getting a 157 or a 155 with the 2026 golden orca that came out this year. I’m 6ft 2 and 165 pounds size 10.5 boots. Would be more of a powder board but also could move into my daily board. The 155 seems appealing for trees but a 157 would save me $250 by getting last years model… let me know if you have any thoughts! Thanks!
Hi Lane, thanks for your message.
I wish I could tell you to get the 157, so you got the discount! But I do think the 155 would be the better size for you. I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 159 and with the width of this board, I would want to size it down more than 2cm, even with 10.5s. I mean if it was your dedicated board for deep days, then the 157 would work. But for it to turn into your daily driver, I would go 155, if you can.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks again for your information.
I try to find golden orca as my next snowboard.
I use binding with size M of union atlas pro with boots 26.5cm.But I can’t find template golden ORCA to verify my boots is fit or not. Do you know where to find the width information of 150/153 cm of golden ORCA to confirm my boots (bindings) on internet? Or do you have any recommand for me?
Hi Albert, thanks for your message.
If you scroll down in the review to the “Golden Orca in More Detail” section and then go to “Set Up” you will see that I got 274mm at the front insert and 272mm at the back insert for the 153. Assuming the same stance width the 150 should be around 271mm at the front insert and 269mm at the back insert. If you let me know the size and brand/model of your boots, I can give you my opinion of whether I think your boots will be a good match for the 150 and/or 153 Golden Orca.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your reply.
My boot is Thirtytwo with model TM-2 Snowboard Boots 2024. Size is US 8 (26 cm).
I have no idea about “insert” you mean fron/back insert. would you please expalin for me?
Hi Albert
Inserts are where the screws are to mount the bindings – so essentially where your feet are going to be. With US8 boots, you’ll want to size down a little more than what you typically would with the Golden Orca. Which size is best for you will depend on your typical size. I’m happy to recommend a size, if you could just let me know your height/weight. But certainly your bindings will fit no problem on either one, IMO.
Hi Nate,
Thanks again!
I’m 5’5.7”, around 138 lb.
Hi Albert
I wouldn’t go longer than 150 for your specs for the Golden Orca and even then it’s on the big side, IMO, because of the the width. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 151 and with the width of the Golden Orca and your boot size, I’d want to size down more than 1cm if it was me. If you’re used to riding longer boards like 156/157 or around that and you’re comfortable with boards of that kind of size, then the 150 should work fine. Otherwise, I would be inclined to look at the regular Orca in the 147. Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks again!
BTW, How the different control ability between golden orca and regular orca? Looks like the height/weight cause I can’t choose the high level Orca.
Even though I really want golden orca. lol
Hi Albert
If by control you mean stability, then yeah the Golden Orca is more stable when you’re riding it fast. If you mean maneuverability, the regular Orca is easier to maneuver, particularly at slower speeds – so I would say the regular Orca has better control for slower speed tight turns, whereas the Golden Orca has better control at higher speeds – i.e. remains more stable at higher speeds and holds its edge for high speed carves better. Hope that answers what you were asking.
Hi Nate,
I’ve been riding a Dark Series from 2011 and it’s starting to show its age, so I’m looking for a new board. I had a couple other boards before the dark series, and they felt, ok, but the dark series just really clicked on groomers and in powder for me. So I’m hoping to find something similar. I’m an advanced rider, but I’m just getting back to the sport after a few years off, so likely closer to intermediate at the moment. I prioritize powder in the side/back country when we get it, but want to be able to carve on groomers when we don’t. I don’t do the park and ride directionally. How do you think the golden orca would stack up to my current dark series? Would you have any other recommendation from lib tech or other brands (although I am partial to my local brand)? Length suggestions?
My current board is a 158. I’m 5’10”, around 150.
Thanks so much for your advice.
Jordan
Hi Jordan, thanks for your message.
I never got on the Dark Series – it was just before my time testing boards and I didn’t ride it before I was testing, so couldn’t say for sure if the Golden Orca will feel similar or not, except to look at the specs of the Dark Series and some other reviews. But in terms of how you describe your riding it should be a really good match, IMO. And based on specs, it should be at least somewhat of a similar feeling to the dark series.
Seems like the 2011 Dark Series had C2BTX, which is close to the equivalent of C2X but maybe a little less camber than C2X, but feel shouldn’t be too far off. The Golden Orca is mid-stiff (7/10 flex by my feel). It seems from I can tell from specs and reviews that the Dark Series is about that too. The Golden Orca is more directional than the Dark Series, by the looks of it, but if you only ride directionally, then that’s likely to be neutral or positive for you. The sidecut is also really similar. Probably the biggest difference, apart from the Golden Orca being more directional, is it’s width. While it’s not quite as wide as the regular Orca, it’s still volume shifted, so it’s something you should size down for, IMO.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 155, and if you didn’t have any preferences, then I’d say the 150 would likely be your best bet, though it would depend on boot size. With a 10 or below, I’d say 150 typically. Since you’re used to a 158 – and it sounds like that’s your preference – then you could go to the 153. But if you’re boot size was like 8.5 or under, I’d probably still go 150. If more like 9-10.5, then I’d say 153.
For something not volume shifted, you could look at the Rasman, which is also C2X, mid-stiff and a similar sidecut. It’s similar to the T Rice Pro but a little more directional and the T Rice Pro is C2, rather than C2X (so a little less camber).
Hope this helps
Hello and congrats for the great work. I want to buy a new board and i am between TRice Pro 155, jones mountain twin or twin pro and Libtech Golden orca 153. I weight 76 kg and iam 5’9 tall with boot size 9.5-10. Intermediate rider and i prefer all mountain freestyle and cruising down the resort mostly but i am considering freeriding off piste. What would you recommend better of those three? I ride in Burton Cartel with dc judge. Also what size would you pic in any of these?
Many thanks
Hi TeoZ
For all-mountain-freestyle I would go Mountain Twin of those. The Mountain Twin Pro and TRice Pro would also work well for all-mountain-freestyle, if you were wanting to ride faster and more aggressively, but as an intermediate rider, the MT would be a better bet, IMO. The Golden Orca is the best in terms of freeride of the 4, IMO, but again, as an intermediate rider, it’s less suitable than the MT, IMO. The MT handles off piste stuff and is pretty versatile. The best flex match, IMO, with your binding/boot setup is the Mountain Twin, again, IMO, so everything points to the MT for me.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 157/158, so I would be leaning 157 for the MT. But the 154 would also work, if you wanted more maneuverability at the cost of some stability/powder float. If you went MT Pro, I would probably be leaning 154 to mellow it out a bit. 155 for T Rice Pro sounds about right to me. And Golden Orca, I would say 153 or 150. I really liked it in the 153, but I’m a little bigger (6’0″, 180lbs (81kg) and 9.5-10 boot size) – so I don’t think you’d find it too big, but the 150 would be something to consider if you were to go Golden Orca. But I would go MT if I was you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Many thanks for your answer Nate! I really appreciate the whole time and effort you putting here.
I was considering more the Golden Orca at 153 since i ride in 155 now. Wouldn’t be the 150 a bit small or is it my idea? (Meaning as an impact to my ride). Also at my level do you think is it that hard or difficult to ride the GOrca? Mostly i like cruising and i am not into jibbing.
As for the MTs i am looking at 156W also as an option now that you have said all these goodies about them:) But i dont wanna lie…Libtech is my dream board for sure.
Again many thanks and appreciation! You help a lot
Hey TeoZ
Because of its width, I would size the Golden Orca down. The 153 is probably all good, but as an intermediate rider, it’s a relatively challenging ride and the 150 is an option as it would mellow it out in that size. Going smaller, say to the 150 in the Golden Orca would mean less stability at speed and less powder float, so you would be sacrificing some things there – but would just make it an easier ride, with better maneuverability. But I wouldn’t go Golden Orca as an intermediate rider, if it was me.
You don’t need to go wide for the Mountain Twin, the 157 is plenty wide for your boot size, IMO. And if you don’t need to go wide, then I wouldn’t. The 157 is the better bet for you, IMO.
If you want to go Lib Tech, I would look at the Terrain Wrecker – that would suit your style of riding and level really well, IMO. Or if you wanted to go more freeride/directional, then I’d take a look at the regular Orca.
Hello Nate,
First of all, thank you very much for your incredible work.
I follow you from France, so sorry my bad English.
I would like your advice please to choose the best choice of snowboard.
I currently have 2 Twin directional all-mountain snowboards, because I love switch snowboarding. I usually snowboard with the angle of my bindings (-15) (+15). The Jones Mountain Twin (157) and the Salomon Assassin (156).
But this time I want to buy a freeride snowboard that would also allow me to perform well on groomed slopes.
Despite your great information, I’m hesitating between 3 snowboards and which sizes to choose depending on the choice of snowboard. (Unless, based on my descriptions, you have another, more judicious choice to offer me.)
Jones Stratos (But I’m afraid of stability in frozen conditions and on rough terrain)
Jones Flagship (probably the best in powder according to your descriptions, but less versatile? on piste than the other two?)
Lib Tech Golden Orca (too demanding?)
The priority would of course be freeride, but I would like to be able to use it to go fast and hard on frozen slopes while having good grip when powder is lacking.
I have been snowboarding for over 20 years, I consider my level between advanced and expert.
I’m 5.7 and weigh 150 pounds. My boots are size 10.
Which board would you recommend? And above all in what size?
A huge thank you in advance.
Math
Hi Math
Thanks for your message.
Stratos: I found it to have good stability in hard/icy conditions and overall good stability and edge hold. However, with the exception of speed, I preferred the Flagship for everything else over the Stratos. And it’s noticeably lighter than the Stratos and at your weight, I think you’d appreciate that extra lightness. So between those 2, I would be leaning Flagship, and I actually found it to be quite versatile, even though it’s quite directional. It would be a really good compliment to the rest of the snowboards in your collection.
The Golden Orca would give the best edge hold in hard/icy conditions, IMO, but the Flagship isn’t far behind in that respect. While the Golden Orca is certainly more demanding than the regular Orca, it’s not ultra demanding or anything. Both boards would work well and both be a good compliment to the rest of your collection. I personally preferred the Flagship for trees and generally for tighter, slower turns (e.g. like when you’re in trees), so if you ride trees a bit, then I’d be leaning Flagship. But if you don’t really go in trees, unless there’s fresh powder, and you want to maximize your hard/icy conditions edge-hold, then I’d be leaning Golden Orca.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154. However, given the sizes that you’re used to riding and the fact you can ride freeride boards longer than all-mountain-freestyle boards (typically more of the length in the nose, outside the contact points), I would be looking at the Flagship in the 158 (if you’re worried about the width of that one, let me know and we can go into that). For the Golden Orca, I would still size down, because of its width and likely the 153 would be the best bet. I think the 157 would be a bit on the big side, when taking into account the length and width.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Hey Nate,
Do you feel the 153 was the proper size? Lib Tech recommends 1-3cm shorter. I’m currently 190lbs and 6ft tall. My daily is a 158 yes typo (use to be a 159 assassin). I’m really torn between the 153cm and 158cm on this board.
Hey Mike
Thanks for your message.
I felt the 153 was good for me. I could have ridden the 157, but for a board of this width, I don’t think I would have liked it as much in the 157. I usually ride my all-mountain size in that 157-159 range and that’s assuming a pretty good width for my feet. I do see that Lib Tech recommends 1-3cm shorter, but I think that really depends on your foot size, so you could size down more than that with smaller feet – and with bigger feet, you wouldn’t need to size down at all, IMO.
For your specs, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160cm. So, the 157 might be your best bet, but the 153 wouldn’t be wrong, particularly if you have smaller feet. If I had like size 10.5 to 11 feet or something like that, then I would likely err more towards the 157, but I felt the 153 was just right for me.
Hope this helps with your decision
hello nate! Thank you very much for your work. You help a lot and we learn a lot thanks to you. I read in your review of the lib tech orca that you recommend the ion to another guy for the golden orca better than the photon step on I don’t understand. The ion is more rigid, the golden orca is medium-rigid flex. Wouldn’t the photon be better than the ion for golden orca? thank you so much !
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your message.
Both boots would work, but personally I prefer to err a little stiffer in boots vs the flex of the board. Or match. But the Golden Orca feels like a board that would perform better erring a little stiffer in boots/bindings. The Photon Step On would certainly match it, so definitely not a bad choice, but the Ion aren’t a ton stiffer than Photon – they’re not like Driver Xs or anything, so you’re still getting a mid-stiff boot on there, just a little stiffer, which I feel would benefit the Golden Orca, based on feel when riding it – and the style of riding most would be getting the Golden Orca for.
But yeah, if you wanted to pair it with the Photon, it would definitely work.
Hope this helps