Forums DIY and Mods 163 WIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDE
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #578577
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Anybody got big feet?

    Here is the answer

    Length 163cm
    Waist 33cm
    Nose / tail 38cm

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #667704
    shredgnar
    643 Posts

    I’d love to check that thing out. But I’d have to spray paint it first. Bet it’s a fun ride though.

    #667705
    FloImSchnee
    291 Posts

    Wow, can you ride that in anything but powder?

    My 27cm-waist-boards look slim next to that plank!

    Was it built to order?

    #667706
    singlewhitecaveman
    242 Posts

    Damn. How does it tour?

    #667707
    philip.ak
    679 Posts

    DIY using two boards. Smart.

    Did you Frankenstein two sets of skins together as well?

    :thumpsup:

    #667708
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Guys
    This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands!
    Have been thinking about this for a while, had some boards donated (seconds with various issues) and was seeing what I could come up with.
    Wanted to make it a 158 but didn’t have two boards good enough to cut.
    The Voile pucks just fit but it does limit your stance options a bit, the angle markers on the puck are out, so you have to eyeball the angles or use an angle gauge.

    Skins are not a problem as I have Firstlight skins I can make in any shape!
    Crampons would be the only issue, but I’m thinking of making a few wide sets to suit my Split Banana Hammock anyway.

    How she rides time will tell but I think it a Japow board for sure!

    Might have to add some more hooks to keep here together as well.

    Cheers

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #667709
    Scooby2
    620 Posts

    well, there are plenty of inserts! give us review next winter from Hokkaido FL. I’m thinking crampons could be real helpful with that width, and maybe with them you don’t need super fat skins

    #667710
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Scooby2

    I’m thinking maybe I’ll mill two slots in each “Ski” to take the Std crampon?
    This will be only for flat skinning but no good on icy steeps
    Not sure what effect this will have on board strength?

    Cheers

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #667711
    shredgnar
    643 Posts

    With a board that wide, I’d be able to ride the 0º and 0º angles I rode as a kid! Sweet!

    I wouldn’t ruin the board to add crampons. How often does anyone use crampons?

    #667712
    Scooby2
    620 Posts

    hmm, I think the longitudal flex of the board as a whole would be OK, but I wonder if the little bit of edge and rail would fail on icy crunchy bumps/rocks. I bet the rail would hold up for quite a while if you just rode it on deep days.

    #667713
    Taylor
    794 Posts

    The real hovercraft. Rad. This again raises the need for the surface area metric. It’d be a blast for low angle meadows and trees on high-hazard powder days. I’d have cut it to yield some taper.

    @sun_rocket

    #667714
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Taylor
    I was going to cut taper but I would have hit inserts!!!!
    Didn’t water jet it so perhaps next time if the concept works?

    Cheers

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #667715
    Scooby2
    620 Posts

    LOL!, I used this calculator

    http://www.freshiez.net/skiarea.html

    it shows that (assuming this shape has about 130 cm contact length, the same board at 26cm waist would have to be 31cm longer, a 193, to have the same contact length surface area (excuding nose and tail)!!!

    and that 163 cm board probably has about 10cm2 more than a rad air tanker 200cm at 25.5 waist, 31.5n, 29.9t, 159.5contact length.

    #667716
    NorwegianDan
    109 Posts

    @firstlight wrote:

    Scooby2

    I’m thinking maybe I’ll mill two slots in each “Ski” to take the Std crampon?
    This will be only for flat skinning but no good on icy steeps
    Not sure what effect this will have on board strength?

    Cheers

    Cool looking board 🙂

    Did you try milling out slots for crampons? I really like this idea.

    It might even be of advantage on uphill icy traversing.

    Would consider doing this to my boards and thereby be able to use narrower crampons.

    Difficult to know without any field testing, but I guess someone has to be first (and possibly last)

    🙂

    #667717
    Scooby2
    620 Posts

    FirstLight, you are going to break the best skin track ever with that thing. whoever follows you isn’t going to have any snow fall in on their board

    #667718
    NorwegianDan
    109 Posts

    @norwegiandan wrote:

    I really like this idea.

    It might even be of advantage on uphill icy traversing.

    Anyone care to share thoughts on this?

    The reason I think it may be of advantage, is that when you are traversing uphill (“zig-zagging”) on hard/icy conditions,
    it is often difficult to get the crampons to be of good help. Because the crampons are so wide, the full width of board
    gives a huge of leverage with the uppermost half of the crampon acting as a pivot point. You tend to go straight up instead…

    With a crampon that is more narrow than the board one would get fetch both with the crampon AND the edge.

    This naturally becomes more distinct the wider the board gets.

    I am looking getting a new Furberg this year. The spec for tthe 173 says waist 270mm. The wideste dynafit crampon is 130. Though they are actually a little wider, and might fit if you round off the side of the board where the crampons go over but the slots may be a better idea.

    #667719
    HansGLudwig
    601 Posts

    @norwegiandan wrote:

    With a crampon that is more narrow than the board one would get fetch both with the crampon AND the edge.

    This naturally becomes more distinct the wider the board gets.

    While a cool idea (and a beautiful board), I’m not so sure. I wonder if the edge gained is worth the sacrifice in predictable flexibility.

    The edge lost by crampon cover is only consequential in “banana rockered” and flat-underfoot boards; where— while skinning— bite happens underfoot. Cambered boards bite closer to the tip and tail; not where the crampon conceals edge. YMMV

    The further away the edge is from the crampon teeth (i.e. the wider the board), the longer the teeth have to be; because in order to engage the crampon, the ankle must be tilted downslope (which scares the piss out of me!) and sacrifices edge hold. Otherwise you can’t traverse with ‘level’ ankles (actually slightly tilted into the slope) which creates edge hold; and our whole goal here is edge hold + crampon bite.
    I think Firstlight would be better off fabbing up some custom, ridiculously wide crampons.

    On a more practical note. . . Unless you have elephant feet or weigh 150kg (300+ lbs.), this board was intended for nipple-deep Japow days. Right?
    And if you are out on such a day and need to ascend some windswept, bulletproof snow where crampons are necessary in order to shred said nipple-deep Japow, does this not imply blower pow over ice? It is my understanding that should be taken as a message to STAY THE FUCK OFF THE MOUNTAIN and ride that wicked board on some mellower slopes today because this is a recipe for a very deep, soft-slab avalanche.

    Be sure to bookmark Splitboard.com's Recent Activity page...
    http://splitboard.com/activity-2/

    #667720
    Scooby2
    620 Posts

    I’ve never used crampons on a split (Utah), could you even not use skins on a good snow day and just use crampons?

    Norw.Dan, I wouldn’t cut into your new split for this marginal gain, I’d rather bend and rebend whatever crampons come with your dynafit rig.

    #667721
    NorwegianDan
    109 Posts

    @scooby2 wrote:

    I’ve never used crampons on a split (Utah), could you even not use skins on a good snow day and just use crampons?

    No, that wouldn’t work.

    @scooby2 wrote:

    Norw.Dan, I wouldn’t cut into your new split for this marginal gain, I’d rather bend and rebend whatever crampons come with your dynafit rig.

    I agree it would be drastic to saw into a new board 😯 but I think it may be well worth while trying this on a old DIY.

    Sure, I can get the 130mm dynafit crampons to fit – but are we not in the DIY and mods category here? 😀

    #667722
    NorwegianDan
    109 Posts

    @hansgludwig wrote:

    The further away the edge is from the crampon teeth (i.e. the wider the board), the longer the teeth have to be; because in order to engage the crampon, the ankle must be tilted downslope (which scares the piss out of me!) and sacrifices edge hold.
    Otherwise you can’t traverse with ‘level’ ankles (actually slightly tilted into the slope) which creates edge hold; and our whole goal here is edge hold + crampon bite.

    The way I see it the leverage created from a wide crampon on hard snow is forcing the ankle/board/binding downslope..

    If the crampons went through slots as described (ie narrower than the board/ski) they would make it easier for you to hold your ankle/board/binding tilted inwards toward the slope thereby increasing edge contact and possibly hold.

    You are right though, the teeth would indeed have too be longer in order to engage the same amount at a given slope angle.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.