Hello and welcome to my Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Terrain Wrecker as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Terrain Wrecker a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 2021
Price: $579
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10 to 7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5/10)
Rating Score: 89.6/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 38 men’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Terrain Wrecker’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Terrain Wrecker’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All-Mountain |
Price: | $579 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Centered on effective edge |
Base: | Eco Sublimated TNT |
Weight: | Felt a touch lighter than normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
152 | 253 | 90+ | 40+ |
154 | 255 | 100+ | 45+ |
156W | 267 | 120+ | 54+ |
157 | 257 | 110+ | 50+ |
160 | 259 | 120+ | 54+ |
161W | 267 | 120+ | 54+ |
Who is the Terrain Wrecker Most Suited To?
The Terrain Wrecker is a really versatile board that excels pretty much everywhere - so it's a great option for those that want just one board in their quiver and who like to do a bit of everything.
Or as your daily driver that you can do everything on, but you still might have a specific park board for park days and/or a specific powder board for powder days, but for everything in between or if you want to do a bit of everything in one day without changing boards, this thing is a great option.
In terms of feel, this is best for those that like a snappy, lively feel to their boards, rather than a damp/smooth feel.
Not for very beginners, but it's a pretty easy riding board, so low-intermediate and up shouldn't have any issues riding this board.
The Terrain Wrecker in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Terrain Wrecker is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 2021, 154cm (255mm waist width) and 157cm (257mm waist width)
Date: January 7, 2021 for the 154 and various dates on the 157
Conditions for 154: Cloudy with some snow at start but visibility not too bad - 75%-80% visibility.
Quite warm at 0°C (32°F) but was cold enough to be snowing not raining when I started, then it was dry and just cloudy.
24 hour snow: 0cm (0")
48 hour snow: 10cm (4")
7 day snow: 115cm (45")
Snow conditions on groomer: Pretty good. Medium firmness, with the occasional harder patch. Some crud around.
Snow conditions off groomer: Quite firm but not crunchy/icy, so pretty good.
**ALL TYPES OF CONDITIONS ON THE 157 - I USE IT AS MY CONTROL BOARD
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 555mm (21.85″)
Stance Setback: Centered on effective edge*
* but measured 50.5cm (19.88") from center of front binding to end of nose and 47cm (18.5") from center of back binding to tail, so quite a bit of setback overall on board. The tail is blunted and the nose rounded so this difference is exaggerated by about 1cm I would say, but the nose is still a good bit longer than the tail even without the blunting.
Width at Front Insert: 262mm (10.31") - for the 154 (264mm for the 157)
Width at Back Insert: 262mm (10.31") - for the 154 (264mm for the 157)
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2900grams (6lbs 8oz)
Weight per cm: 18.83 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of around 80 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. The Terrain Wrecker is heavier than average. But it felt really light on snow - which is the main thing really. UPDATE: I weighed the 157 at 2860grams - so actually lighter - which was 18.22g/cm. That is the nature of wood cores.
Damp or Chattery?
More chattery than damp but not super chattery or anything
Smooth or Snappy?
Snappy for sure. Well up the snappy scale. Prob a little less so in 157 (which would have been the better size for me), but this size is ultra snappy. 157 still really snappy.
Powder
I didn't have anything really to test on. But based on specs and feel of the board, I thin k it would be a really fun surfy feel in powder. Not like a super powder board, when things got really deep, but should be able to hold its own well in powder.
157: Pretty decent in powder, as predicted, without being a powder specialist or anything.
Carving & Turning
Carving: It doesn't lay down a super aggressive carve. You can carve on it, but it's not a killer carver, IMO.
Turning: Really fun board to turn on. Really easy going and next to no effort required to turn it. Could ride this board all day, every day for a week without fatiguing.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Super nimble at slow speeds and super quick to kick out the back foot when it's needed in the trees.
Skidded Turns: Fine for skidding turns on. Not catchy at all.
Speed
Got quite wobbly when opening it out, particularly on groomer sections that were quite cruddy. But it was a 154 and the 157 will feel a little more stable, but still not a speed demon or anything.
As predicted the 157 is a little more stable at speed, but still nothing amazing at speed.
Uneven Terrain
For weaving through trees/bumps it's awesome. Not as good for crud though - got bucked around quite a bit. Doesn't crush through it.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
This thing was so sick to jump with!
Pop: Great pop and feels light in the air - and that pop is super easy to access - requires very little effort.
Approach: Could get a little wobbly on faster approaches, something I think the 157 will to some extent take care of, but for the most part a good mix of being agile and stable-ish. 157 slightly more stable, but not super stable on faster approaches.
Landing: Solid enough without being a stomper.
Side-hits: So much fun! It's agile, poppy and you just want to find every single thing you can to launch off.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Best suited to small to medium jumps, IMO, but it can handle bigger jumps.
Switch
Pretty good for riding switch. But certainly couldn't charge switch quite as well as I could on the YES Greats (which I was using as my control board). Not bad at all, but not perfect either.
Spins
Super easy to get spins around on this thing (the 154 helped there for sure, but I can't imagine the 157 being a tank to spin). And that pop and ease of pop made this thing easy/awesome to spin on. Not perfect for taking off and landing switch for 1s, 5s, etc, but all round very good.
157 still nice and easy to spin on.
Jibbing
Felt very confident hitting jibs on this board. This is the weakest part of my riding, but I felt confident on jibs with the Terrain Wrecker.
Butters
The Terrain Wrecker felt really buttery. Smaller boards are always easier to butter, so the 154 was more buttery than a more correct size board would be, but in my experience with sizing differences with other boards, will still be nice and easy to butter in the 157. Again, will update once I've got the 157.
Yep, still nice and easy to butter. The 154 still marginally easy to butter, but not much in it.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPEED | 3.0 | 6/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPINS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
BUTTERS | 4.5 | 4.5/5 |
JIBBING | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 89.6/100 |
My first impression of the Terrain Wrecker was "wow this thing is lively buttery, spinny". Which makes it sound quite freestyle and it kinda is (but 154 size influenced that a bit). But also quite directional and quite a surfy feel to it too.
And that impression lasted. This is a board that you could ride as a freestyle board if you wanted to. But it's got a more all-mountain shape and you could do no freestyle riding on it at all and still have a blast.
It's particularly good in the trees and the park but it's also great for just cruising the groomers and setup to be decent in powder too. All that and good edge-hold in hard conditions makes this a very versatile ride that's well suited to anyone who likes their ride snappy and energetic.
The 157, naturally had a slightly different feel - but it wasn't as different as I had expected. Mildly less buttery, mildly more stable at speed, mildly better for powder (assumption), but the core personality of this board is mostly the same.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Terrain Wrecker, 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 snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Terrain Wrecker compares to other all-mountain snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hi Nate,
I have been riding the same 1999 option camber board for 24 years. This next board will might be my last. I am 43, lower intermediate and not likely to progress to advanced riding at this point. I am looking for something forgiving but aslo good for helping me take on more challenging resort terrain….crud, bumps, steeps, some dampness to manage the chatter, some sort of edge tech to help with occasional hard or icy conditions (in Ontario Canada where conditions vary). Been going out with my 7 year old so something that can turn quickly and also maneuver at lower speeds would be good. Is the TW right for me? Any other suggestions?
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
I think the biggest thing that would make the TW maybe not quite the right board is the dampness. I don’t find it a very damp board.
A couple of options that could work well for what you’re describing, that I’ve ridden recently are the Never Summer Swift and the Burton Deep Thinker. They are both ’24 models, though I think the Deep Thinker was the same in the ’23 model. The Swift has changed for ’24 though. Older Deep Thinkers may not have the maneuverability at slow speeds or for bumps that you’re looking for. But the ’23 or ’24 models would be a good bet, IMO.
Check out the following as well, which I think would have some good options to suit what you’re describing. If you have any questions about any of the boards in the lists that might not be in the full reviews (though I do try to put every detail in the reviews, occasionally something might not get in there).
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>Top 10 Mellow Freeride Snowboards
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate!
You’re very welcome John. Happy riding!
Hi Nate. I checked out those reviews…I find myself riding switch more now with going out with my 6 year old….also finding the freeride boards lean more towards advanced riders. I did check out your all mountain top 10, would the jones mountain twin match up with my needs ok?
Hi John
I think the Mountain Twin would work well for what you’re looking for. It’s a good all-rounder and I’ve found it to be good across all types of terrain – and good for riding switch too. I think it would be a good bet for what you’re describing and your level.
Hi there, 188cm 90-95kg 13US I had 10 years break in snowboarding, coming back, at the moment have no problems to ride down ski slope (blue/red) for now, hard to say what level though. I like in speed to do some bigger curves, but have a feeling that with my weight i need sometimes board which will better hold me on ski resort icy snow as well, and also, I would like to start to do some progress, jumps, switch, small stuff, kind of all mountain board i would say. help pls. thank you in advance
Hi JJ
Thanks for your message.
My instinct for you, based on what you’re describing, is for something a little stiffer and more stable at speed than the TW. I would look at one of the following:
– Nidecker Thruster 162W
– Bataleon Goliath+ 161W
– Nitro Team 162W
– Yes Standard (or Standard Uninc) 162
– Rossignol One 161W
– GNU Rider’s Choice or RC C3 162W
– Capita Mercury 160W
These are also taking into account getting something wide enough for your US13 boot. The safest bets in that sense are the YES Standard or Standard Uninc and the Nitro Team Camber, which are the widest at the inserts of those options.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much for replay, I had a hope you will mention Lib Tech skunk ape II 161W but for sure I might rethink this based on your exp , thank you again.
Hi JJ
I haven’t tested the Skunk Ape. It could be an option – but because it only comes in wide sizes and I don’t have the specs to be able to test wide boards, I haven’t been able to test that one. So can’t say based on experience. But also can’t say it wouldn’t be a good choice, as it might work well.
Hey Nate,
Thank you for the reviews first of all. Your effort is very useful for the snowboarding community.
Currently using Burton Photon Step on boots with Genesis Step on bindings.
I have around 10 days of snowboarding in a year and i suppose i’m an intermediate rider. And i should also mention that I’m not an agressive rider.
I ride on the groomers with my friends mainly but if there is a fresh snow, i like to try trees sometimes.
I had a burton custom camber (156) but it felt stiff after my previous snowboard k2 broadcast (153)
So i sold the burton’s and i’m willing to buy Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker because I want a fun directional all-mountain snowboard that’s easy to ride.
PS: 155 lb, foot size 8
Hi from Istanbul 🙂
Oh it seems i forgot to add my question 🙂
How is TW compatible with my boots and bindings?
I hope you say “it is okay” because i have already ordered TW (152).
But if they are not compatible at all, i can try to cancel the order.
I also thought buying lib tech dynamo but as i knew dynamo is more aggresive and sand stiff so i may have the same feeling with the burton custom’s.
Thanks in advance
Hi Oguz
Thanks for your messages.
I think the TW will work well for the style of riding you’re describing. Size-wise it’s probably good, but if you could let me know your height as well, just to confirm. Whilst weight and boot size are more important for sizing, I still like to take height into account as there is still a leverage factor there.
Note that the 152 TW is likely to feel quite a bit softer than the 153 Broadcast. If you had the same sized Custom and Broadcast, I don’t think the Custom would feel stiffer. Shorter boards will always feel relatively softer, all else being equal. But I think it’s a good match for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate thank you for the fast response,
my height is: 170 cm (5 feet and 7 inches)
Hi Oguz
I think the 152 works for your specs. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but I would size down a little for most boards, including the Terrain Wrecker, because of boot size. So, I think going to the 152 makes sense. You could also ride the 154, but I think the 152 is a good amount of size down, given the width in relation to your boot size.
Hi Nate,
I am reaching out once again here.
I was first leaning towards the mountain twin and already asked you some questions there.
Now I have a good deal in sight for the terrain wrecker (used for 10 days already) in 154.
My specs again are 80kg, 8.5 boot, 179cm.
The size would probably work would it?
Then I also heard that the quality of lib tech snowboards (american production) is not the best and that they do not last too long.
Do you have any experience with that in comparison to Jones MT?
I am just wondering if it makes sense to save a few bugs and buy the terrain wrecker used in 154 or go with the mountain twin new in 157 which is more expensive.
Thanks once again
Jan
Hi Jan
Thanks for your message.
The biggest thing with the Terrain Wrecker in terms of quality, is that the metal edge doesn’t wrap all the way around the board. It doesn’t wrap around the toe nose and tail. The metal edge stops just after the contact points. That said, it hasn’t caused me any issues. I own the Terrain Wrecker and I’ve had it since the 20-21 season and done more than 50 days on it now and it’s held up fine for me so far.
I think the 157 is the better size for you, but again, with the 159 Broadcast already in your quiver and if you weren’t going to be using it for high speeds or powder or anything, it’s doable in that size. Note that I have found the TW to be softer flexing than the MT, so going 154 in the TW vs 157 in the MT, that flex difference will be even more noticeable. The TW has a bit of a looser feel and overall more playful and less carvy (as mentioned in our conversation on the MT review). If that sounds like the kind of thing you’re looking for, then it could work for sure.
Hi Gavin,
Thank you very much for your in depth review. I am pretty set on buying the TW after reading it. My only concern is what length board to get – I am 5’7, 170 pounds, riding with a Ride Lasso size 9. I have about 25 days on the mountain and would think I am a low intermediate level. I like to do groomers, tree runs and side hits – not much park stuff. Would I be better off with the 154, 156W or 157?
Also, regarding bindings, I am leaning towards the Union Atlas 2023 bindings but just wondering if they are too stiff for this board. I have never learned to butter but seems like a fun skill to pick up especially with this board and was wondering what binding would allow for that.
Really appreciate you taking the time to answer the questions. Thanks again!
Jon
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 154 for your specs/how you describe your riding. The 157 wouldn’t be wrong, but I would be leaning 154. You don’t need to go wide with 9s, IMO.
The Atlas would be the stiffest I would put on the TW – they’re borderline too stiff. Also as a lower intermediate they are also borderline too stiff. And for butters, they aren’t going to be the easiest to butter in. So, whilst they would work, I would be leaning Strata, ideally – a good flex match and good for buttering – and just all round good bindings (and a really good price these days too). The Force would also be a good bet, but not as good in terms of board feel, but if you think you’d prefer the universal disc, rather than the mini-disc, they would be a good option. The new Union Ultra would also be a good flex match and great for buttering. They are also mini disc.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I am finally going to switch my old Palmer classic 154 to a new board. I have almost pulled the trigger on TW 156W based on your reviews, but now having second thoughts. I mostly ride on groomed, some ice (Alps), no park, pow when available. I would consider myself an intermediate rider (around 20 yrs riding, but very irrregurarly). I have always ridden camber boards, but had a rocker board for a week and loved the easy feeling of it – so now want to try the hybrid (want it to be easy when slow/cruising but also stable and locked in when going faster). I am 180cm and 86kg, 11.5 feet. I have also ordered new boots (TM2 3XD) and plan to get Union Atlas with the board. Do you think it sounds reasonable?
Hi Kuba
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” close to 160, but given you’re used to riding a 154 and that your level is intermediate I think the 156W should work well for you. And in terms of the board, if you liked the feeling of the rocker board, then I think you’ll like the TW – having that camber in there, IMO, is the best of both worlds, when you’re looking for something do-it-all. The TM-3XD and Atlas are a good match for the board as well, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Just want to say great website, loads of great information!
I am looking to get a new board and am currently riding a Never Summer SL 159
I am a level 5 intermediate looking to progress and ride in the Alps!
I am 5’10” 78kg and size 8 UK boots! I was thinking of going for the Lib tech terrain wrecker or the yes standard but am open to other suggestions!
Any advice you could give me on sizes and suitable bindings to pair with the board would be much appreciated!
Thanks for your help
Mike
I was thinking if going for
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
Between the Terrain Wrecker and Standard, I would say that the Terrain Wrecker is the more playful, looser feeling ride. The Standard isn’t super aggressive or anything, but between them I find the Terrain Wrecker a little softer flexing/looser.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 157 for the Terrain Wrecker and 156 for the Standard, though the 153 would be a possibility for the Standard too, particularly if you wanted to favor maneuverability over stability at speed.
For the Standard I would go with a bindings in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range, ideally.
For the Terrain Wrecker, something in the 5/10 to 6/10 flex range ideally.
Some good options to look at:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot! Funny thing, I got a great deal on T Rice Pro 157W, actually a bit cheaper than TW. Same bindings (Atlas Spring Break 2022) and TM2 3XD – so I ended up with something different, hopefully not that much. Based on your reviews it looks like a bad choice (those second thoughts..;) – also I saw Angry really didn’t like it. In spec it looked like a better board (sintered base and HP core for example), also I loved the graphics. Hope I won’t curse it – going to ride it next weekend and I will update here how was it 🙂
Hey Kuba
It’s not a board I liked that much, but it’s a polarizing board. Some seem to love it, some hate it. I didn’t like it much personally but I had someone else test it last winter and he really liked it. And everyone who’s commented about it that have ridden it have either really liked/loved it or really disliked it, so it’s a really hard one to get a good read on. Hope it works out for you and look forward to hearing what you think.
Hello Nate!
First off I wanna say thanks for this website and all your hard work, really the best snowboarding content around. I’d like to hear your opinion on a small shilly-shally I have.
From day one to intermediate level, at which I am at right now, I used only Elan Crest 2008/09 164W, full camber, directional freeride, 4/5 stiffness board (with Burton cartel bindings); it would be an understatement to say it is not very suitable for beginners, so my learning curve was very steep and not all that fun.
I finally decided to invest into a new board that will suit me better and make my progression further much easier.
I am 6.3 tall, athletic slim build, 186lbs, 11-foot size (44EU), riding in the Alps. Furthermore, I ride mainly groomers with carving, but go pow, side hits and trees any chance I get, like jumps, and get jealous when I see ppl playfully turning with ease at slow speeds while totally relaxed.
Current board is unstable at approach and landings, nose sinks in pow, turns like a tank at slow speeds, catches edges at slow speeds, flat rides and platter lifts are a huge pain. Actually, the only thing that it excels at is carving, bomb runs and becoming alive in pow (if all my weight is on my rear leg).
After researching a ton of boards over the last few days, I found these few interesting:
-Lib tech terrain wrecker (having concerns about epoxy use in production which translates to board becoming a lot softer over time and high speed performance);
-Burton custom Flying V (despite being out there for decades, not a lot of info on it except everybody saying it’s a best all-mountain board out there, which is the same thing everybody says for every all-mountain board out there);
-Yes PYL (having concerns that it’s too close to my current board in regard to style and firmness, and possible delamination).
I’ll probably be pairing them with Burton genesis bindings. Also, I presume I should be looking at 162W versions?
I’d greatly appreciate your input in the matter, and maybe some other board suggestion I missed?
Thank you!!
Hi Boris
Thanks for your message.
I think the PYL will be more forgiving and an easier ride and better at slow speeds, less catchy etc, compared to what you have – and will be better in powder, but it is closer to what you already have and my instinct is to go a little mellower. However, the YES Standard is something that I would consider. It’s a little more stable and better at speed than something like the Terrain Wrecker, but a little softer and more mellow than the PYL. And it’s a wider board than you’d think. With 11s it’s also a good idea to not go too wide. Even though you’ll typically need a wide board with 11s, there are different levels of wide. And I would actually go 159 if you went Standard, with your specs.
The Terrain Wrecker (TW) is an option still, but it’s a bigger deviation from what you’re used to. From what we’ve looked at so far the scale would be TW, Standard, PYL, Crest. My instinct is that you might find it a little too soft for what you want and what you’re used to. Even though you obviously want things mellower (and I think it’s a really good idea), because you are used to stiffer, more precise, my instinct is that this might be going a little too far the other way.
The Custom Flying V is a touch stiffer than the TW, but it’s got a more playful camber profile. The Flying V profile can feel very loose when you’re not used to it. And coming from a stiff full camber board, my concern is that you’d find it too loose.
I would be leaning YES Standard 159 of all those options, but another good option would be the Jones Mountain Twin. I’d be weighing up between the 159W and 162W for this one. You could do either. I would probably be leaning 162W, largely because you’re used to a longer board and it’s the more pure size for your specs, IMO, but the combination of length and width and being an intermediate rider make it on the bigger end of your range, IMO. If you were closer to beginner, I’d say 159W for sure, but assuming a fairly solid intermediate level and for what you’ve been used to, I’d say 162W
Hope this helps
Nate!
Thank you for your input, I went with Yes standard 159, Burton genesis and tactical ADV. I find the board graphics hideous, so I hope it’s gonna live up to my expectations performance wise. If I come across the TW for rent somewhere, I’ll make sure to take it out for a spin just to get a feel what’s on the other side.
Again, I am grateful for all your help!
You’re very welcome Boris.
Hope it does perform to your liking and that you can get past the graphic!. And hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, I’m impressed with the review format! This will be my second season of riding. Last season I got in 7 days of riding, half in the west and half east. I live in the east. I’d say I picked it up pretty quickly, and now I’m ready to buy my setup. I plan on tripping in both the east and west again. I’d like a board that is all-mountain, and just able to do many different things. Powder won’t be in the equation much. I’ll probably be on the regular runs more than the park, but I’d like to be able to do both. Maybe catch some air on the runs, do side hits, be able to go in the trees, etc, but also try and go fast and carve hard. So just flexible. I am a 5’5 150 pound male, maybe 160 by end of season. My local guy has told me I should get a skate banana, but I’m not buying it. It seems like he thinks anything stiffer or with more camber wouldn’t be good for smaller mountains in the east, or would otherwise just be too hard to control because they’re too stiff on account of my weight. Now I’m looking at the terrain wrecker. It just seems like a good all-rounder. I’m pretty opposed to the rocker of the banana just on principle. I certainly want something advanced to grow into. I don’t want to be limited by the board as much as is possible. Anyway, do you thing the TR is a good choice? My guy had recommended mervin boards for the magna-whatever for the ice coast. If so, what size? 152? Any recommendations would be much appreciated!!
Hi Gavin
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing I think the Terrain Wrecker would be a really good bet. It’s not overly stiff or anything and actually something I think is a really good bet for your level of riding. I haven’t ridden out East but I’ve ridden on small, icy hills before and it’s not too stiff, in my experience. It’s true that being lighter will make things feel stiffer, but that’s why you size appropriate to your weight. Smaller boards feel softer than their equivalent in longer sizes. In the 152 I think it would work really well for what you’re describing. But if you could also let me know your boot size just to confirm.
Magnetraction does help with icy conditions, but there are other brands with good edge tech that helps in icy conditions too, so you don’t have to limit yourself to Mervin. But that said, I think the Terrain Wrecker is a really good bet for you, so if you didn’t want to complicate things, you could go with that. If you did want some other suitable options, I would be happy to give a few more options.
Hope this helps
Street shoe size 8.5, but just bought double boa vans in 7.5. If you think there’s anything else worth mentioning, then sure! Otherwise TR seems great. I’m sure I can take advantage of cyber Monday tomorrow.
In fact, the best suggestion you could give me is maybe some cheaper boards. And with a board 100 dollars or more cheaper, and I giving up a lot of quality? TR isn’t out of the question. But it’s a lot of cash to drop, I feel, for a first board. Or not. Heck, I don’t know.
It should also be said that my boots are vans auro pros. I don’t know if the flex level on those dictates a certain board as well.
Hi Gavin
Thanks for your replies.
The TW, even in 152 is on the wider side for your feet, but it’s still doable. I would put your “standard all-mountain” length at around 153, but would size down a little from that given your level, and then again given it’s wide for your feet, so the 152 is on the bigger end for your specs and considering everything. It’s not un-doable, but you could go a little smaller – or at least a little narrower if it’s going to be a 152 length.
The YES Typo is the first board that comes to mind as an alternative and is a good bit cheaper too. And you could get that in a 149, which would be a good size. You could ride the 152 as well, but it’s a similar width overall to the 152 TW. Again doable, but the 149 would be a better right now size, IMO.
The Slash Brainstorm, if you can find one, is also a good bet. Not quite as good in icy conditions, but still good and a good price and good as a high-end beginner/low intermediate option as well, IMO. The 151 would be a good size.
The Rossignol Resurgence 153 would be doable too. Though on the longer side, IMO. And not as cheap as the Brain Storm and Typo.
The Aura Pro are what I felt as a 5/10 flex, so they will be a very good match, IMO for any of those options.
Thanks for all your help! I remember having rode a 150 rental in snowshoe, WV and liking it, and thought I wouldn’t mind going a couple of cm bigger. Is TW at 152 just something to grow into skillwise, or straight up suboptimal? I have to say I was kinda stoked to get it in general. But I would differ to the expert. I’m but a one season wonder. Also excited about the magnatraction. And assuming money is no longer an issue. I decided that I’m willing to shell out the cash. Thanks again!!
And all that being said, if the Typo at 149 is still best, it is what it is. So long as you don’t think I’m giving anything up with it.
Hi Gavin
I would say it’s a size that is fine as a more advanced level. Just not quite perfect for your level. So yeah more something to grow into skill-wise. So not straight up suboptimal, IMO. Just a bit of a steeper learning curve for right now. For right now, I think the Typo 149 would be the fastest progression, but the TW 152 certainly doable. Not really giving up too much going Typo – TW a little better for powder but not too much in it otherwise. In terms of icy edgehold the Typo doesn’t give anything up, IMO. Magne-traction is good for icy conditions but so is the underbite tech on the Typo.
Now I’ve been looking at waist width a bunch. Why not the Yes Standard at 151? Is it a question of stiffness?
Also want to be bombing and going fast as I can in general. But keep in mind it’ll be mostly on NC and WV terrain, but Aspen near end of season. So a variety of terrain with mostly east coast.
I just looked at the dynamo. The C3 camber turned me away at first, but I’m willing to try it given that the typo looks camber dominant. And the dynamo is very thin at 150 at 143mm. I also just kind of favor mervin as a company and brand vs yes
Hi Gavin
The Standard is a bit of a step up, mostly because of being stiffer yes, but it’s something you would probably be OK with given that you’re looking to bomb. And it’s good in icy conditions. But it’s not as narrow as the waist width suggests. It will actually be wider at the inserts than the 152 TW. It’s got this mid-bite which makes the waist width on it deceiving. But the 152 TW is doable size-wise, so I’d say the Standard is as well. But keep in mind that the being the bigger end size and being stiffer add together to make it more board to handle overall.
The Dynamo is also certainly a step up. And C3 is a more aggressive camber profile than what’s on the Typo, IMO. The Typo does have more camber than rocker both in terms of how pronounced the rocker and camber sections are and in terms of the length of those camber and rocker sections, but it’s got pretty mellow camber (4mm) and it feels that way. Riding the Dynamo it feels more aggreesive. That said, when I rode it, it did feel more mellow than some of the other C3s I’ve ridden. That size I think is very good, with the narrower width – and you’d be looking at an insert width of around 251mm versus more like 260mm on the TW and a little more on the Standard (depending on stance widths for each). So size-wise, I think it ticks all the boxes – and with that size being more manageable it would negate some of more aggressive aspects of it. Hard to say if you would find it too catchy or not, no guarantees there – but I didn’t find it overly catchy, but I would still say easier to catch an edge on versus something like the TW or Typo.
Can you tell me the width at the inserts for the 157? I saw 262 above but thought that might be for the 154.
Thanks!
Hi Paco
Thanks for your message.
The 157 is 264mm at inserts. I can see how it’s not clear in the review though – I will add a note in there to clarify it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks. It looks very clear now! I’m Size 11 US. Considering a 157 versus going to a 156W. Would rather not go wide but obviously I’m close to that point given it being 264.
Hi Paco
Yeah with 11s it’s a bit narrow in the 157. You might get away with it but it will depend on a few things. a. how low profile your boots are b. binding angles – a greater angle will allow to ride a narrower board and c. how deep you like to carve. If you like to get really deep in your carves, then you’re more likely to get boot drag. Also, if you ride with a wider stance, then that can give you a bit more leeway too, as your feet would be on a wider part of the board. But I wouldn’t widen your stance just for that. But if you were to have a naturally wider stance.
Hi Nate,
I am stuck between the Terrain Wrecker and Yes Standard. I am a 6’3 high end beginner/low end intermediate rider who focuses on bombing groomers and back bowls. However, I would like to start learning switch and trying to start buttering and jibbing. I’m a size 13 boot, so I think I would need the 161W for the Terrain Wrecker (159 Yes Standard should work).
– Could you steer me in the right direction? I believe both would be great options, but having trouble pulling the trigger on one. I want a board that will help me progress, but hoping the Standard wouldn’t be too “catchy” on the edge.
– Lastly, would the Genesis bindings work if I went with the standard, or would the Strata bindings be more suitable for the stiffer Yes Standard? Again, I don’t want anything too stiff, but still want to be able to hit a groomer pretty hard with confidence. Thanks!!
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
IMO the Terrain Wrecker (TW) is the more suitable board for your level, but the Standard is better for bombing, so I get your dilemma, for sure.
Between the two, the TW is the looser rider – which also makes it more catch-free and easier to slash and initiate turns, but makes it less stable at speed. That said, the Standard isn’t what I would call catchy by any means. But will have a little more consequence in terms of catchiness vs the TW. It’s more of what I would call a stable feel – not locked-in (which would feel more catchy) but not loose either.
The Genesis would work with the Standard, IMO, so that’s certainly an option. If I had to choose, I’d say the Strata is the slightly better match for the Standard though, being just a touch stiffer. But the Genesis wouldn’t be wrong. Genesis/TW would be a great pairing, IMO.
Width-wise, I think you should be OK on either 161W TW or 159 Standard (with the 159 Standard being a little wider at the inserts, despite being narrower at the waist). If you’re riding with quite a straight back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees), then it could be pushing it with 13s, IF you’re going to be doing deep carves. But otherwise, you should be OK.
In terms of length, I would be happy to let you know my opinion on those lengths for you, but would just need your weight as well.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply Nate!
You threw me for quite a loop there! I was kind of 70/30 leaning towards the Standard. As a high end beginner, do you think the Standard would be too demanding for me?
They both seem like great one board quivers, but given that 90%+ of my riding is on groomers, back bowls, and powder (hitting natural jumps when I see them), I didn’t know which would suit me best since I do like to go quite fast at times.
I’m currently at +15 for the front binding but still playing around with how I like the back binding oriented (only attempting switch ~5% of the time).
I suppose I could sacrifice a little bit on speed in exchange for a softer, more forgiving ride. I think I would appreciate the surfy forgiving ride of the TW over a more locked in feeling at this point in my progression.
Hi Luke
It’s hard to say for sure if the Standard would be too demanding for you at this stage, but it will be a little more demanding than the TW, IMO. I would sooner recommend the TW to high-end beginners, but the Standard may be doable
Hi Nate!
First, I want to thank you for all these GREAT reviews!
I want to get a new board this season and I may be overthinking it but I can’t zero in on a board.
I am 41yo, been riding for 25+ years and I’m 6’1″ 220lbs 11.5 boots. Back when I started and through most of my 20s I was riding about 50/50 between park and powder. Fast forward to my 30s, I had 2 back surgeries that set me back for a few years and when I went back to riding in 2014 I got me a 162 Skate Banana as I wanted something easy to ride. I LOVE this board. I love the way it handles and how forgiving it is. The only drawbacks I feel are high speed stability and powder.
I am looking for a board that gives me more of that all mountain performance (I am no longer touching the parks ;-)) and edging more on the freeride side of things while keeping some of these aspects I love about the Skate Banana.
The board I am the most interested in is the Terrain Wrecker. However, in terms of size, I am afraid the 161W may be on the smaller side for me and that it could be an issue in powder. I was also looking into the Skunk Ape or even the Orca. Not sure about sizing for these two as well as the Skunk Ape goes from 161W to 165W and the Orca is volume shifted.
Lastly, yes, I am very Lib Tech oriented. I just loved my Skate Banana!
Thanks!
Yann
Hi Yann
Thanks for your message.
Given you’re looking for better float in powder and stability at speed (but still not being super aggressive, if I’m hearing that right?), then I think the 161W Terrain Wrecker (TW) will give you that versus the 162 Skate Banana. But given your main thing is going to be powder and stability at speed with this new board, again without going too aggressive, you could go a little bigger. This is assuming that you’re going to be still using your Skate Banana at times when you want things more playful. If instead this will be to replace your Skate Banana and you’re looking for a little boost in powder and stability at speed, whilst keeping some playfulness, then I think the TW 161W is a good bet.
If it’s going to be in tandem with the Skate Banana, then something like the Skunk Ape 165W could work well. It’s not a board I’ve ridden, so I can’t say for sure how it rides, but it’s got a little more camber than the Skate Banana and it’s stiffer, so it will give you more stability at speed. It’s also more suited to powder, based on specs – and if you go 165W you’ll be getting that extra surface area vs your 162 to also help with powder. Note that the Skunk Ape has become the “Skunk Ape II” for the 2023 model – which has C2X camber in place of the C2 on previous models. It’s also a little more setback and has some subtle taper.
The Orca will also give you that increase in stability at speed and even better powder float versus the Skunk Ape (or Skunk Ape II). It’s very much a powder oriented ride. More aggressive than the TW, IMO – quite a bit stiffer and takes a bit more muscling when there isn’t powder. So overall not as easy to ride as something like the TW. Not sure with the Skunk Ape, but I get the impression it’s a little stiffer than the TW, so might be a little less easy to ride than the TW as well, but not so sure on that one, having not ridden it. Size-wise for the Orca you don’t really need to size down for it, given your boot size, so even though it’s volume shifted, it’s more like just thinking of it as having just wide sizes for bigger footed riders. So I think the 162 would work well for your specs.
Another Lib Tech option could be the Cold Brew. Again, I haven’t ridden this one, but it’s C2 and medium flex – so should be an easy going ride, but it’s a freeride board and the 163W would be a really good size, IMO. Can’t say how it rides from experience, but might be one to look into.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks!!
I think I’m between the TW and the Orca. I won’t get rid of my Skate Banana but ideally I want something I can use for pretty much everything. I used to be on the east coast, riding local resorts there and dealing with icy conditions but I’m in Texas now and I ride mostly in Colorado and in the Alps (I am from France). So I may be able to get away with the Orca.
Hi Nate,
This year I decided to buy a new snowboard. I am obsessed with Lib Tech so I checked their whole line up and I realize that Terrain Wrecker would be perfect board for my riding style, but I am little bit confused about sizing. I have really old directional board – 5150 Liberator 158, this brand probably not exist anymore. I was thinking that the lenght of the board is 158 cm (because of the name), but when I measured it, the real lenght of the board is cca 156 cm. It is probably wide board because width of the nose and the tail is 31 cm, the waist width is 26,7 cm. My height is cca 180 cm and my weight is cca 95 kg, I have Northwave Freedom 2006 boots size 10,5 (my shoes size is 10) and newer Forum bindings (cca from 2012, but I don’t know the model name). Could you please help me which size to buy? I will buy new boots and bindings in the future definitely, but first I want to replace my board.
Thank you in advance.
Michal
Hi Michal
Thanks for your message.
When measuring a board, the measurement includes the curve at the tip and tail of the board. If you measure in a straight line from tip to tail it will always be shorter than the stated size of that board. So I suspect that if you were to measure it taking into account the upkick at the tip and tail (hope that makes sense), it’s probably 158. And yes, it’s certainly wide.
But in any case, I would go 160 for the Terrain Wrecker for you. I think the width should be fine for 10.5s and that’s the best length for this board for you, IMO, unless you want it to be really playful (at the sacrifice of stability at speed), in which case the 157, but at your weight, I think it’s too small, and risking it width-wise as well. So yeah I would go 160. The 161W is a possibility, but I wouldn’t go wide unless you really have to. If you ride with a really straight back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees) and really like to really carve deep – like Eurocarves – then you’ll probably want to go wide. Otherwise, I would go with the 160.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much Nate. I was thinking about 161W, but now I think that 160 would be better.
You’re very welcome Michal. Thanks for visiting.
Hi Nate, I just picked up a 2022 156W Terrain Wrecker on sale (woot!). My other boards are a 159W Antigravity and a 156W Skate Banana. I have a set of Cartel Xs as my sole bindings (at your recommendation:), and I’m thinking of a 2nd set of bindings so I can have two setups at once for quick board-changes midday, or to allow a friend to ride one of them too. Based on these boards, it seems to me the 2nd set should be a softer option than the Cartel X. I’m leaning towards another Burton binding, possibly the Mission Re:Flex. Can you give me your two cents on the right flex of binding to work well with my softer boards? I’m riding in the MidWest, a lot of hard pack, with the occasional fluff if we’re lucky haha. Cheers
Hey Nick
Awesome to hear you found a deal on the Terrain Wrecker.
Yeah, I would go softer as a second setup. I would keep the Cartel X on the Antigravity and then use the softer set on the TW and Skate Banana. You could even try out the Cartel X on the TW, but that’s the stiffest I would put on the TW – and I wouldn’t put the softer binding on the Antigravity.
The Mission would certainly work for both the TW and the Skate Banana, so that’s definitely an option – and a less pricey one. The Genesis and Malavita would also work well with those 2 boards. I’m partial to the Malavita, so I’d be leaning that way, but the Mission is just a little softer, so you would be getting that slightly bigger separation between the Cartel X and it. That said, there is enough difference between the Custom X and Malavita and Genesis as well and both would work for your softer boards as well.
Thanks Nate!
You’re very welcome Nick. Thanks for visiting.
Hi Nate, I just bought a new TW after reading your review. Just a quick question how do you find the reference stance as there are no markings?
Hi Danny
Reference on the TW – and on most boards, when there’s no reference marked, is 3 holes in from the center of the board on each insert pack. See image below:
So, assuming a non mini-disc, you would be screwing into the 2nd and 4th holes from the middle of the board and you should have a roughly 21.7″ stance (550mm).
Hope this helps
thanks much appreciated!
You’re very welcome Danny. Happy riding!
Would this function as a beginner board or is it too much?
Hi Zack
Thanks for your messages. If you’re a high-end beginner bordering on low intermediate, then I think you should be fine with this board. It’s pretty playful and not overly stiff or technical or anything. For a true beginner though, it’s a bit too much. Also if you were quite light weight and a beginner, then it might be a bit too much. If you size it appropriately (as in erring on the smaller side) and are a higher end beginner and not too light weight, then I think it could definitely work.
Hope this helps
What would be your top board recommendations for a higher level beginner?
I am a fairly “true beginner” I feel like I’m pretty athletic and pick things up quickly but don’t want the board to hinder my progression. Would this be a fit? Or what other options would you recommend that are better? I really want to try a mervin board and unfortunately the skate banana seems to be the beginner board and from what I’ve read a lot of people aren’t a fan of how loose it is. There really isn’t a board between the banana and the terrain wrecker that falls into that all mountain freestyle category.
Hi Zack
Yeah from Mervin, there’s not much in between and the Skate Banana is really loose feeling. The GNU Rider’s Choice would be a similar level as the Terrain Wrecker. The GNU Money is what I would consider that in between, a little more beginner friendly than the Rider’s Choice and Terrain Wrecker, but not as loose as the Skate Banana. It’s still loose, but not quite as much.
Being athletic would certainly help to bridge the gap to something like the Terrain Wrecker/Rider’s Choice. It’s a bit of a stretch, but certainly more doable if you’re athletic. If you did want to take the stretch to them, I would be happy to give my opinion on sizing. Sizing is always important, but even more so, if the board is going to be a bit of stretch. I would just need your height, weight and boot size.
Thank you for the reply. I’m 5’5 170lbs. What about the never summer Proto slinger?
Boot size is also a 9
Hi Zack
If you were to go Terrain Wrecker, then I’d go 154. 154.5 if Rider’s Choice. 152 if Money.
The Proto Slinger is a nice soft board, but it does have a fair bit of camber. That said, that softness really mellows it out enough to be a pretty easy ride. Still wouldn’t consider it a beginner board, but as doable as the Terrain Wrecker and Rider’s Choice. Size-wise, I’d say 153.
Would this board be a terrible choice for a beginner? I don’t know why but I really want a lib tech board, especially here in the east coast, but the true beginner board is the skate banana which seems to get a lot of hate overall.
Hello, like the rest of the crew here I have been having snowboard selection woes. I would consider myself a solid level 3 beginner, probably a low level 4. That was done in about 5 days on the mountain, most likely due to my time on skis.
I’m 5’8” around 170-180 lbs ish depending on how heavy I’m working out at the time. I’m pretty athletic. Boot size is 8.5 -9. I can’t figure out at all what board I should get to progress, I own a NS proto slinger now and I was hoping to progress this year into some carving by the end of season. I have no desire to ever be in the park or even leave the ground for that matter. I just want to be able to cruise down any icy run(east coast).
My question is what board should I be looking to grow my carving and cruising? I’d like something that will get me to intermediate levels of carving and cruising without having to buy another board next year. I was looking at the terrain wrecker but there are just too many options, budget doesn’t matter.
Appreciate any insight you have to offer.
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
The following, taking into account you need something good in icy conditions and you’re not looking at doing anything freestyle. Plus since your main focus is carving, I would look at something with a decent amount of camber in it. As a high-end beginner/low intermediate don’t want to go too crazy with the camber or stiffness, but given what your focus is and since your quite athletic, I think going to a medium flex and something with a decent amount of camber is a good idea.
Size-wise, anything up to 156/157, but you could certainly go a little shorter than that, depending on the width. With all that in mind, I think the following would be a good match:
– Arbor Shiloh Camber 156
– Jones Mountain Twin 154 (157 a little big overall, when taking into account width and length, IMO)
– Jones Frontier 156
– Lib Tech Dynamo 156
– Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 154 – though I would be leaning more Dynamo, given your carving focus.
– YES Standard 153 (it’s a wider board and the 156, IMO would be a little big with length/width combined)
Hope this gives you some good options.
Nate, awesome response, super helpful. We were thinking along the same lines.
That being said I think I’m leaning heavily to the dynamo, would you have any binding recommendations? I currently ride the flow fuse fusion, which I would guess would be a solid choice for this board, but I was debating on trying out the Burton Cartel. Any thoughts? Other suggestions?
I’m a bit skeptical being relatively new to this and having made some expensive choices when I started skiing, prefer not to feel that pain again.
Thank you in advance and I really appreciate the effort you put in on your site, great unbiased advice that is just super helpful.
Hi Jeff
I don’t currently test flow bindings, so I’m not super familiar with them, but based on specs, the Fuse look like they would do the job and should be a good match for the Dynamo. The Cartel certainly would be too and are a good choice, IMO, for any mid flexing board. I would look at something around 6/10 to 7/10 flex for the Dynamo personally – and in your case, I would be leaning to that 6/10 mark, just to get that right balance between something that can allow you to advance your carving, but not being so stiff that it’s too advanced that it’s harder to apply good technique as a less experienced rider. So the Cartel are right there, IMO. Not sure how the Fuse would fit in as I haven’t ridden them. Something like the Union Strata, Union Force or K2 Lien AT would also be a good match.
What makes this board directional, with no setback and 0 taper?
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
The nose is a little longer than the tail. It’s a directional twin. The TW is centered on effective edge, but it’s setback on the overall length of the board because of that longer nose. You can see more on how I categorize shapes here.
Hope this answers your question.
Hey Nate,
I have a Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker on the way, in no small part due to your review. I think it will be a great all-rounder for riding out east, I’m psyched.
I am 6′, 210lbs, size 11 boot. I just noticed in the comments that the TW runs a little narrow at the inserts relative to the waist. Do you think the 160 will be ok for my size 11s? I currently ride a Burton Custom and Burton Custom Flying V, both 158Ws, and I get a little boot overhang but it’s been fine. The TW is narrower at the waist so I was a little worried, but since it was within your general range for an 11 I went for it instead of the 161W. Wondering if I made the right call.
Thanks,
Julian
Hi Julian
Thanks for your message.
Yeah often Lib Tech/GNU boards are narrow at the insets relative to the waist. In the case of the Terrain Wrecker 160, you’re looking at around 266mm at the inserts (based on a 555mm (22″) stance width). If you have a wider stance width than that typically, then you can add a millimeter or 2 to that – so around 267mm-268mm. That’s cutting it tight, depending on some factors.
Firstly, with low profile size 10s, I’ve never encountered issues going as narrow as 256mm at the inserts (which would be equivalent of 266mm for size 11s), but that’s riding with +15/-15 angles and low profile boots.
So I think it will depend on:
1. How low profile your boots are (what’s the make/model of your boots?)
2. Your binding angles. You can gain around 5mm, if you’re binding is on an angle of around 15 degrees. The smaller the angle on your back binding the more chance there is for boot drag.
3. How aggressively you like to carve. Like if you really like to rail your carves (e.g. euro carving), then you’ll want to have more width
Depending on those things, I think you could get away with it. If you have any 2 of those 3 not in your favor though, then I think it would be borderline and might be too narrow.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate,
My boots are K2 Maysis size 11s, I tend to ride +12/-12, and while my carves are improving they are not that deep, realistically not even close to a Euro carve yet. Reference stance.
Curious what you think. One factor is my decision was not being able to find any 161W boards at this point in the season. So I guess I’ll be trying it out either way!
While we are at it, I have started to think about bindings. My other boards are a Burton Custom with size L Cartels and a Custom Flying V with L Malavitas (both ESTs). The idea for the TW is a playful Flying V type ride that handles the ice better, so at first was going to go with some Reflect ‘Vitas. But in the spirit of trying new things I am starting to consider the Union Stratas as well. Based on the above, I am thinking the size L Stratas are probably too long with the large baseplate, what do you think?
Thanks again for the thoughtful replies,
Julian
Hi Julian
Thanks for the extra info. It’s a close call. Hard to say for sure, but you might be OK. The K2 Maysis aren’t very low profile, but the binding angles will help and if your carves aren’t super deep, you might get away with it.
For bindings: With the Strata, the baseplate is long. I haven’t measured the L, so I’m not sure the exact length, but top of the footbed is most likely longer than the width of the TW 160 at the inserts. The underside of the baseplate would probably be fine, but there’d likely be overhang of the footbed, which isn’t ideal. So hard to say for sure, but I think the L Strata’s would be pushing it. The Large Burton bindings would have no issue fitting on it though.
Thanks Nate. Last question. If I had asked you what size TW was best for me given my specs, before you knew I had a 160 on the way, what would you have suggested? If the 161W is just a better fit I can always sell the 160 at a slight loss and pick up a 161W nest year.
Thanks,
Julian
Hi Julian
It’s always tight with 11s. But I probably would have been leaning 161W in this case, to be on the safe side. That said, I do like to try to get on the narrowest option possible without going too narrow personally.
You’re probably looking at around 5cm of total overhang on the 160. So around 2.5 on heel and toe assuming perfect boot centering. That’s taking into account the 12 degree angle. It’s so close. I’m typically happy with 2.5cm and a little more on the heel side, but less than 2.5 preferably on the toe side. It’s so close and it’s probably doable, but I think I would have erred on the safe side and recommended the 161W. With a lower profile boot, I would have been quite confident to say 160.
Hey Nate, just wanted to offer a quick follow-up now that the TW 160 is here. Standing on the inserts at roughly my binding angle in bare feet, my toes and heels just barely reach past the edges of the top deck. This tells me that the 160 is the right width for me, based in part on your guide to board width, which was super helpful. So, with my Maysis starting to get a bit beat up it looks like I’ll be on the hunt for some new low profile boots for next season. I’m thinking the 160 TW with size L Malavita’s and some med-stiff low profiles will be a great setup for me. Unfortunately the general reviews for the 2021 Tactical ADVs were not good and I hear Addidas is getting out of snowsports, but I’m thinking Vans Auras and Infuses will be on my shopping list. Thanks again for all the great resources.
Hi Julian
Thanks for the follow up. Yeah with low profile boots, I’d say you should be all good.
Nate:
I’m an intermediate rider who is looking to eventually have two boards to do everything I want to learn in snowboarding, one more powder/free ride focused and the other an all/mountain with a touch of free style in order to do some basic tricks (butters, rolls, 180s) on groomers outside the park. I am 5’9” and 155 lb. I currently have a 2015 K2 Raygun, but the more I read about the Lib tech terrain wrecker, the more I want it. Do you think it’s a good upgrade from my current board to use as my all mountain/freestyle board? If so, having ridden the 154 cm yourself, do you think that’s the size I should go with or should I go 157 cm? I read your entire article about sizing and found my standard and real length to be 156 but since you have tried both I though you might have some insight. Thanks so much for your reviews, articles and general knowledge you have given me to this sport that I am loving more and more each day!
Hi Anil
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, IMO, it’s a good upgrade from the K2 Raygun.
Size-wise, I would go 154 for you. I prefer the 157, but still had a good time on the 154 – and with your specs, the 154 would feel like the 157 does for me. And I think that’s the best size for what you’re describing as your all-mountain-freestyle board. So yeah, I’d definitely go 154 for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate:
Thanks so much for getting back to me so quickly! My only reservation with getting the Terrain Wrecker in 154 versus a similar board like the Jones Mountain Twin (which was my second option) is the waist width. I don’t know much about this topic other than what I read in your guide to finding the correct width. I wear a size 9 snowboard boot which looks like would go best with a waist width between 245- 250, but the TW is 255. Is that a deal breaker? I dont’t know enough about his topic to know how strict those limits are.
Hi Anil
The TW isn’t as wide as the waist width makes it sound. The width at the inserts on the TW is around 262mm on the 157 and around 260mm on the 154. You could get similar insert width on some boards with a 245mm waist, so waist width can be a little deceiving at times. It’s hard because waist width is all we’ve got to go off a lot of the time, because that’s all the brands publish. But I measure all the boards I test at the inserts so I have that information for a lot of boards. In contrast the Mountain Twin 157 is 268mm at the front insert and 269mm at the back insert and the 154 would be around 265/266 on the 154. That’s at reference stance, and it has quite a wide stance, but even taking that stance in you’re looking at 263/264 on the 154. So even though it doesn’t look it based on waist width the Mountain Twin is actually wider at the inserts size-for-size than the TW.
Waist width itself can make a difference to the boards feel, so width at inserts isn’t everything, but the TW isn’t as wide as it looks, just based on waist width – the difference between waist width and width at inserts is smaller than average on the TW and larger than average on the Mountain Twin.
Hi Nate:
Ok, after doing some more research, I am really unsure whether to get the Terrain Wrecker or the Jones Mountain Twin. Having ridden both, what would you say sets them apart from each other? The Mountain Twin seems to get better reviews overall, but I wanted to get your feedback. Could you suggest a size for each based on my measurements? I think you said the terrain wrecker in a 154 cm would work best for me. I am 5’9”, 155 lbs and wear a size 9 snowboard boot.
Hi Anil
I’d say some of the bigger differences are:
– The Terrain Wrecker is a little softer flexing, easier to butter and overall, better for jumps (though the Mountain Twin probably a bit better for landings), IMO and a bit better for jibbing. Probably marginally more maneuverable at slower speeds too.
– The Mountain Twin is a better carver and a little more stable at speed. Slightly stiffer. The Mountain Twin has a more stable feel, whereas the Terrain Wrecker is a looser feel. It’s not super loose, like an all-rocker board can be, but it’s on the looser side of the middle of the scale, if that makes sense.
Size-wise, I would go 154 for either board for your specs. The Mountain Twin is going to be wider at the inserts (about 263mm/264mm) – on the wide side for 9s, but doable. The Terrain Wrecker 154 262mm at the inserts. So not much in it there, but the Mountain Twin a little wider at the inserts, and the Terrain Wrecker wider at the waist (though that’s mainly due a magnetraction bump in there) and a little wider at the contact points.
Is the Eco sublimated base in the TW more similiar to an extruded base or a sintered?
My ONLY hesitation with the Mountain Twin is the width of the board. I have been in a size 9 snowboard boot (thirty two stw boa) which seems to fit fine, but I measured my feet to be about 25.7 cm. So I think technically I am somewhere between an 8.5/9. Do you think the 154 cm will be too wide for me? If so, will the next lowest length (I believe 151) be an option? I am 5’9’’ and about 155 lbs. Last thing to take into account is I learned to ride with my binding angles at 15/0, if I move to some sort of duck stance does that effectively make my foot “shorter” when considering how wide of a board works for me? This is why I haven’t pulled the trigger on the 154 cm size yet.
Hi Anil
The Eco Sublimated TNT bases are essentially extruded bases. I would say they’re a little faster than a typical extruded base, but behave more like an extruded base than a sintered base, overall.
Yeah moving that back foot on more of an angle will essentially make your foot a little shorter, but no shorter than what your front foot will be and most of the time your front foot is your main foot, so I wouldn’t worry too much about that.
It’s on the wider side for 9s for sure – and with 25.7cm feet, you will be inside the edges with your feet, but with your specs, I think you could be riding a 156 (if it existed in this board), so you would be sizing down just a little bit from what I would consider your “all-mountain” length. Which will help with the board being a little wider. The 151 would be a better width for sure, and doable length-wise, but I would still be leaning 154, unless you were going to be doing a lot of freestyle riding with it. Same for the Terrain Wrecker, I think the 154 is your best bet.
Nate:
Just wanted to say thanks so much for answering my one million and one questions! I ended up getting a Mountain Twin in a 154. I want to pair them with union stratas but if that doesn’t happen until next season are my Burton freestyles from 2015 too soft as far as flex for the mountain twin?
Hi Anil
Congrats on the new board! Yeah I would say the Freestyle’s are too soft for it. Doesn’t mean you can’t ride the MT with them on, but you won’t be getting the most out of the board with the Freestyle’s, IMO.
Nate;
Good to know on the bindings. Thanks again for all your advice not only with the new board but all the articles that you have posted. It’s been really cool learning so much more about snowboarding and I just want to say that I, and I am sure most people who have visited your site, really appreciate your time and effort! Thanks again and I hope you have some time to shred before this season ends!
You’re very welcome Anil. Thanks for your words. Yeah, still plenty of shredding left for me this season! Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
is the review updated for 157 TW? I cannot decide between yes greats and TW and Jones Mountain Twin. You wrote that TW is not good for landing switch – does it refer to the smaller 154 size only? I am looking for allmountain freestyle board which can also handle some powder a bit and doesn’t kill me on hard ice) Mostly I ride on slopes – pops, spins, switches, presses)
Thanks for your reviews – they’re awesome!
Hi Peter
I haven’t had the chance to update for the 157 – trying to find the time, but I’m right in the middle of demo season now, so crazy busy! I wouldn’t say it’s bad for landing switch at all. It’s not perfect, but it’s not bad. That applies for the 154 and 157. I found the 157 fine for getting spins around too – shorter board will always be a little easier to spin, so the 154 certainly spins a little easier, but the 157 is still really good for a spin and lands/takes off switch fine – just not like ideal like it would be if it was a twin.
Hey Nate, I have been using a Flow 159 board for ever, I will describe as stiff and long for someone 5’’9”. 170 lbs. I am looking for something shorter and al little more flex. I considering the lib tech wrecker, considering I am all over the mountain and been trying to hit trees more. i like 157 size but part of me say go with the. 154? your thoughts please.
Hi Gio
I think the 157 is probably the best all-round size for you. But the 154 isn’t out of range. I think if you wanted to really optimize for trees and park, at the sacrifice of some stability at speed and float in powder, then the 154 would work. If you could also let me know your boot size. Depending on boot size, the 154 could be more or less appealing.
Hi Nate,
many thanks for your reviews! Can you give me an advice about choosing my new board pls? Now I have k2 www 157w freestyle board with k2 hurritane bindings and I switched my vans hi standard boots to burton ruler boa. I am slightly moving from park rat to something bit stiffer maybe for all moutain riding – I still like playfull ride with ollies, switches, butters and 180’s – but I also would like to be able to ride powder days without switching the board and preferably without burning my back leg:D I came to these two options: lib tech TW and Jones Mountain Twin. Are they both similar, or is there some noticeable difference?
I am 36 yo
184cm
76kg
intermediate lvl
Hi Standa
Thanks for your message.
Both boards would suit what you’re describing, IMO. And both boards are fairly similar, certainly in terms of performance, but some differences and both have slightly different feels.
The TW is a slightly looser feeling underfoot, with the MT being more stable (refer to the graphs in the specs tables in the reviews). The TW I found has just a little more pop and a little better for jumps, spins and butters, but the MT certainly not bad in that area. The MT is a little stiffer, but not by a whole lot. It’s a little more stable at speed. Otherwise, they have similar performance, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
thaaaaanks – I’m gonna go with Terrain Wrecker) Can you suggest the best size for me? 6′ tall 167lbs boot size: 11,5 – my current board is 157w which is 265mm in the middle. I don’t want any toe drag). I ride a bit of everything, small boxes and jumps in park, but mostly freestyle on slope and off-piste powder if possible:) Not really a hard charger)
Have a nice day)
Hi Standa
I would go 156W for the TW for you. I think that would be a really good size for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Perfeeect:) And last one: Malavita or Cartel? And the setup will be complete))
Hi Standa.
I’d go Malavita on the TW.
Hello Nate,
l am looking for a snowboard for all-mountain freestyle. l checked almost all snowboards but l still could not give a decision😁. l am intermediate rider and l do not like to ride in park. I like to play around all mountain therefore, l prefer to have a board which l can do easy buttering,pop, jump , easy ollie, %40- %50 switch, ride in off-pist and trees( usually offpist ,powder deep are 30-50 cm).There is a Yes Greats but i dont like the graphics and i guess it is not good in powder. So I have 3 options one of Libtech tw and the others are Gnu rc and Yes Standard .Would you compare these snowboards for my whish and also lf you have an other suitable snowboard recomadation for me ,l’d be glad to hear it.
My boot is burton swath Boa (9)
My heigh is 5’7.3
My weigh is 150-155 lbs
Hi Ertugrul
Thanks for your message.
I think the Terrain Wrecker would work well for what your describing, as would the YES Standard. The Rider’s Choice would also definitely still work, just that little bit less in terms of powder, and if you’re regularly seeing 30-50cm regularly, you might want something that floats a little easier in there).
Between the TW and Standard, I would say:
– The Standard is a little better at speed and for deep carves
– The TW is a little more maneuverable at slower speeds (e.g. in technical trees), a little easier to butter and ollie.
– Both are really good for jumps, with the TW a little more poppy, but the Standard a little more solid on landings
– The Standard is a little better riding switch
– Both equally as good in powder, but I would say the TW is a little better in powder in it’s centered stance, but the Standard has the slam back inserts, which allow you set back further on the board, which helps on powder days
Size-wise, you’d want to size down a little if you went Standard as it’s quite wide for 9s. I would say probably 151 for the Standard for you.
For the TW, the 154 would be your size, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your message
Probably l will buy Tw. Lib tech suggest the Metal Bent Axtion binding for Tw. Also there is Union Strata . Which binding would you recomend for Tw?
Hi Ertugrul
I haven’t tested the Axtion so I couldn’t recommend or otherwise, but it does look like a really good match on paper, in terms of flex. The Strata would be a really good match too and is a binding I really like.
Thank you so much:)
You’re very welcome Ertugrul. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with your new setup once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hey Nate!
How would you compare the Terrain Wrecker to the Dynamo? I’m so close to pulling the trigger on one, but I love hearing people that have actually rode them both talk about them. I’m 6’3″ 210lbs and wear a 11.5 boot. So I’m looking at the 162 / 159W Dynamo, and the 160 / 161W Terrain Wrecker.
Also, I think you’re doing a phenomenal job here! I’ve pointed plenty of my friends here to learn about gear and all, and they all come back super impressed!
Hi Jase
Thanks for your message – and thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
Note that I have now ridden the 157 Terrain Wrecker, which is a better size for me (yet to update the review though).
Main differences that I felt are:
– TW poppier and overall better for jumps
– Dynamo a little stiffer. Not by heaps. I felt the Dynamo at around 5/10 and the Dynamo 5.5/10, bordering on 6.
– TW a little easier to ride switch, but it’s subtle
– Dynamo has a little more of a stable feel versus a slightly looser feel on the TW. TW not ultra loose but just a little looser. I would say that largely comes down to being a little stiffer and having the C3 camber versus the C2X on the TW
– TW snappier/lighter feeling, versus a more damp feeling on the Dynamo. Dynamo still is snappier than it is smooth, but TW a little further up the scale towards the snappier side if that makes sense.
– TW easier to butter
– Dynamo smashes through crud a little easier than the TW
– TW a little more nimble at slower speeds, but it’s pretty close – the Dynamo isn’t bad in that area at all
– Dynamo just a little more on hard carves, but very subtly.
– Both about the same at speed. Having got on the 157 Terrain Wrecker and opening it out, it’s a little better at speed than I though, and will probably change that up to 3.5 from 3. Not like an out and out bomber still but can handle a bit of speed well.
Size-wise, with 11.5s, I would go wide for sure, so 159W Dynamo or 161W Terrain Wrecker would be my picks. If you’re still stuck on which to go with and need a tie breaker, I would go TW, just because I think the 161W is the better size versus the 159W Dynamo.
Hope this helps
So these are actually more similar than not? I did pick up a Dynamo but I’m thinking maybe I should swap for a TW, it’s just been harder to find. Which would be more casual rider friendly? I have a few years under my belt but wouldn’t quite say I’m advanced either. Also agree with Jase, thanks for doing these as it super helpful!
Hi Christian
Thanks for your message.
They’re certainly different enough, but not worlds apart.
I would say the Terrain Wrecker is the more casual rider friendly of the two.
Hi Nate
Considering this board (riding never summer at the moment) but I’m a bit skeptical with Lib tech after hearing that they have de-lamination issues because the edge is not fully wrapped. In your experience, is this “one-offs” /irresponsible care or do lib tech boards have a tendency to do this?
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t noticed this with any Lib Tech demos that I’ve ridden (which typically have upwards of 20-25 days on them), but I haven’t owned a Lib Tech for long enough to really be able to tell, beyond that number. I have bought the Terrain Wrecker to use as my control board for this and future seasons (retiring my old control board as it’s getting on – Rossignol One LF 2018). So, I will find out soon enough, but for right now, don’t really know for sure.
But it is true that the edge isn’t wrapped at the tip and tail. The metal edge goes a good bit beyond the contact points, but doesn’t wrap all the way around.
Any difference between the terrain wrecker and Gnu’s Hyper Kyarve?
Hi Scott
Yeah a few differences. They’re certainly not worlds apart, but they’re definitely not the same either.
Same camber profile and very similar flex, but some differences include.
– Hyperkyarve more directional: Has a tapered directional shape and a 1.5″ setback. Versus the TW which is directional twin, with a centered stance and no taper. I think that’s probably the biggest difference, but also
– Slightly different core
– Hyperkyarve has a sintered base versus the TNT (essentially a flash extruded base) on the TW
– Hyperkyarve is overall a little wider size-for-size
So yeah, a good amount of difference. In real terms, at least from what I got from riding them:
– The Hyperkyarve is better for powder
– Terrtain Wrecker better for riding switch and for jumps/spins
A similar overall feel though, which is strongly influenced by a similar flex and camber profile but still ride a little different
Hope this helps
Thanks for the detailed response, much appreciated!
I actually just picked up a Lib Tech Dynamo based off your review of it. Unfortunately, I also get to send it in for warranty as the base is warped width wise (edges sit 2-3mm higher than the center of the board).
Hi Scott
That’s a bummer. Guessing something must have happened in transit, as I would assume they wouldn’t send the board like that. Hopefully you won’t have the same issue with your replacement.
Well, after getting another Dynamo in less than stellar condition I ended up swapping it out for a Nitro Dropout. Bought it kind of on a whim but man what a great board, took less than one lap to feel completely comfortable on it.
I’ve ridden a few different boards this year (Orca, Hyper Kyarve, Dynamo, Capita Mercury, Burton Kilroy 3D) the Dropout has definitely emerged as my favorite.
Have you ridden the Dropout yet? I’d be interested to read your thoughts on it.
Hi Scott
Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear you got another poor condition Dynamo. But awesome to hear that it sounds like you’ve found a great replacement. I am yet to ride the Drop Out. But my experience riding other Nitro boards has always been a good one, so I’m not surprised that you like it. I am in contact with Nitro and hoping to get some boards from them soon – it’s a little trickier this year, but hopefully I can get some, and the Drop Out is one of the ones on my list to get from them.
Thanks for the sick board bro.
You’re very welcome Tommy. Let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.