Forums Splitboards Furberg Snowboards
Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 324 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #643195
    zikmu
    14 Posts

    Hi Everyone,

    I read through complete topic (it took me two days 🙂 ).
    I am planning to buy factory built splitboard for next season and I can´t decide what to buy. My budget allows only one split to do it all.
    I am split between Furberg ?167?, Jones solution carbon 162W and Jones ultracraft 156.
    My concern is regarding hard steep couloirs. Has Furberg enough edge grip for this kind of terrain?
    I really like what I read about Furberg, especially how playfull is in turns, and offcourse price is better for family budget 😉 .

    I will ride mostly in Slovenian alps, so powder is 30% and hard pack is over 50% and rest is split between spring wet and crust.

    #643196
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    OK, you will be fine in hard steep couloirs with a furberg.
    Note that Davide Capozzi, furberg team rider, is doing lots of very steep descents in the Alps using the furberg. Go to furberg snowboards’ website and click on the link to David Capozzi’s web page to see some of the descents he is doing, yikes!
    The design of the furberg actually does quite well in hard steeps. Typically, the problem with a traditional board in hard steeps is that the deep sidecut tends to over pressure the tip and tail of the board, making them tend to hook the snow, and toss the rider (often in a scary over the bars fall when trying to land a jump turn). The long radius sidecut, combined with the tapered tip and tail shape, of the furberg, reduce the loading of the edge at the ends of the board, and bring the pressure under foot, where it is more easily controlled.
    Where the furberg design has “difficulties” compared to traditional boards, is on hard flat terrain, where the limited sidecut can make the board feel less responsive (you cannot really carve short radius turns at low speeds on flat groomed runs). I ride the furberg in the backcountry, but occasionally there is a flat packed trail to exit on, and here one just has to pivot their turns with the furberg, rather than carve them, it is fine, just different than your typical 8-9 M radius board.

    #643197
    zikmu
    14 Posts

    Thanks for straight answer! 😀
    Now I only have to decide to go for 167 or 162. I saw that David Capozzi is riding 162, that gave me now second tought.
    But for that I have still some time and anyway 167 is currently not available.

    Thanks!

    #643198
    ieism
    298 Posts

    There is not a huge difference between the 162 and 167. I don’t always need the 167, but I can still turn it pretty fast in powder so it’s the one I use most. In tight chutes the 162 might be nicer. I weigh less than 78kg.

    As a reference, the Furberg 167 is much easier to turn than a Carbon Jones 162. It also floats better and is a lot less scary. I would not buy a Carbon Jones without testing it, it’s not an easy board to ride at all.

    http://flatlandsplitfest.com/

    #643199
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    ieism makes a great point: the real beauty of the furberg is how easy it is to ride. Usually really easy riding boards give something up (often high speed stability) but the furberg is not this way. I just got back from a trip to UT, the first day there was bluebird powder, my Never Summer was at the NS factory getting some rock damage fixed and a tune, and I was on my furberg 173 DIY. We were riding perfect, settled, post storm powder on steep lines which emptied out into huge bowls. There was no speed limit on the furberg coming out into the bowls, you could go as fast as you wanted, and you could initiate a turn at speed anytime you wanted.
    The furberg has the an amazing combination of calm at speed, and easy maneuverability when going slower, and it also allows the rider to be very confident as the board will just not toss you or do anything unexpected or twitchy.

    #643200
    summersgone
    814 Posts

    Curious barrows. What type of day would you take the Furberg out, and what day the Prospector? Whats the more go to board for you? And whats the better board if you only had one?

    I’m between these boards, interested to know your thoughts.

    #643201
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @summersgone wrote:

    Curious barrows. What type of day would you take the Furberg out, and what day the Prospector? Whats the more go to board for you? And whats the better board if you only had one?

    I’m between these boards, interested to know your thoughts.

    I wish I could answer that. So far, I have really only ridden them both in powder (yeah, tough problem). They are quite different. Also, my furberg is a DIY 173, for a quiver of one I would really want to try the furberg factory split 167 like Keffler and HFT are rockin’. Right now I lean toward the Prospector, but really only because I am trying to learn more about it, and it is a bit smaller (167X). The Prospector is the more “traditional” ride, I would suggest that everyone try a furberg sometime, it is very different from most other boards in the way it rides and takes some adjustment.

    #643202
    ieism
    298 Posts

    @summersgone wrote:

    Curious barrows. What type of day would you take the Furberg out, and what day the Prospector? Whats the more go to board for you? And whats the better board if you only had one?

    I’m between these boards, interested to know your thoughts.

    To give you an idea, I’ve been on many boards more or less similar to a Prospector. I’ve owned two Libtech splits and have ridden splitboards from Jones, Arbor, Prior, K2, Salomon, Rossi. I would pick the Furberg over any of these, on almost every day. The only day I might take out another board, if I’m riding at a resort on groomers or in deep powder in very dense forest. I might prefer something like a Hovercraft for that. In fact, a larger Furberg and a Hovercraft might be the perfect combination for me.

    Just try one.

    http://flatlandsplitfest.com/

    #643203
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    ieism: I really do not think any of the boards you mention are very similar to the Prospector.
    Personally, what is interesting about the Prospector is the amount of taper it has and the R-C profile (besides the super high build quality and laminate). My 167X has 20 mm of taper, and this allows the the board to float up and plane very quickly, while also making the tail of the board quite forgiving. One can easily push the tail around for quick steering in tight spots, but the board is still large enough to be stable at high speeds.
    I look at taper and see various boards: those with no or little taper where it is not a factor up to 4 mm taper, those with significant taper where it really helps (but will affect switch riding) 8-20 mm taper. And those with really high taper, “Fish” style boards where they seem to become specialized pow tools, not so good on steeps or in variable conditions where the wide nose can be grabby, and the little tail can lack for grip across the fall line.
    Additionally, I do not think boards which are R-F-R (Venture), or R-C-R (Jones, Prior, Salomon, Rossi) are very comparable to how NS C-R-C ride. Of course some of the Libs are similar. The Prospector engages the full length of the edge immediately, due to the camber sections out at the tip and tail, this gives it the quick response of a camber board (and maybe it makes it less forgiving than the furberg, theoretically I would think so, but I have yet to be tossed). But, the rocker center section of the Prospector seems to allow it to pivot pretty easily (similar, sort of, to furberg).
    I have been trying to get to the bottom of how all of these design details affect the ride, and I am gaining understanding all the time. I really think the tapered tip and tail are the one feature of the furberg which contribute the most to its unique ride, as the entry points of the sidecut are so gentle that the tip and tail are super forgiving: it never hooks or chatters, if it is going to loose lock on a turn, it will just gracefully start to slarve, and this transition is super easy for the rider to feel and control.
    I am surprised that you feel the furberg is a little compromised in tight trees with deep pow, I find the opposite to be the case, even on the 173?
    The furberg “drives” from a centered position, one can apply pressure to the board under foot, and have complete control. There is no need for shifting pressure forward and back along the length of the board (although one can do this in open terrain when maching long arcs) so the turns come quick, especially if one applies slight downweighting.
    I really need to swap boards with HFT or keffler one day and get the feel of the furberg 167 factory split…
    One other thing I am starting to experiment with is base edge beveling at the tip and tail (ala dps spoon and Batalion). Adding a three degree bevel over a short distance near the contact points can make huge differences in how boards ride, I think this “3D” approach may become the next frontier in backcountry and pow board designs.

    #643204
    karkis
    270 Posts

    comparing the rides of the Furberg to the Prospector, what really stands out to me:
    Furberg rides from the centre, stable, predictable, responds to your inputs
    Prospector rides longer, more edge, more nose and tail, more board to handle, a bit more reactive, lively ride
    its kind of Betty vs Veronica

    never summer snowboards
    phantom splitboard bindings
    dynafit touring
    atomic boots

    #643205
    permnation
    303 Posts

    @karkis wrote:

    its kind of Betty vs Veronica

    I will assume that Betty is the furberg….easy on the eyes and easy to ride, while Veronica may be a little more maintenance….more manipulation with an equal to or less than ride of a Betty. My Mom’s name is Bette, pronounced Betty. This thread took a hard-left for me….peace out! Oh wait, don’t forget the Furberg Demo Fleet Sale in the Swaps thread.

    #643206
    homiebrotha
    1 Posts

    Anyone here with furberg split in 173 and dynafit toe piece? Which crampons do you use?

    Edit:

    I have the solution 🙂

    #643207
    summersgone
    814 Posts

    I’m going to say I LOVE THIS BOARD! I’m on the 162. I’m 5′ 7″, 150 plus gear. I’ve had it in almost every condition, minus the deepest day ever, which I bet would be awesome. It’s been great in all. Corn is super fun, steeps it is good edge to edge on turns. At speed in deeper snow, it sits up awesome. It is maneuverable, but also mocks at speed. Its amazing how versatile it is. I feel that it can make turns like a Venture Odin, but be as nimble as a shorter board. I’m converted.

    A few nocks on the board are:
    1) Karakorum hardware I am not a fan of. I would prefer the Voile hardware. I hate K-clips and the hooks, personally, I think they are junk, they don’t snap in as well as they are a harder material then Voile.
    2) The topsheet is not as bomber as other companies, like Never Summer or Venture
    3) The rocker profile doesn’t skin as well as other boards with camber or flat under foot.

    But its awesome!

    #643208
    96avs01
    874 Posts

    @summersgone wrote:

    I’m going to say I LOVE THIS BOARD! I’m on the 162. I’m 5′ 7″, 150 plus gear. I’ve had it in almost every condition, minus the deepest day ever, which I bet would be awesome. It’s been great in all. Corn is super fun, steeps it is good edge to edge on turns. At speed in deeper snow, it sits up awesome. It is maneuverable, but also mocks at speed. Its amazing how versatile it is. I feel that it can make turns like a Venture Odin, but be as nimble as a shorter board. I’m converted.

    A few nocks on the board are:
    1) Karakorum hardware I am not a fan of. I would prefer the Voile hardware. I hate K-clips and the hooks, personally, I think they are junk, they don’t snap in as well as they are a harder material then Voile.
    2) The topsheet is not as bomber as other companies, like Never Summer or Venture
    3) The rocker profile doesn’t skin as well as other boards with camber or flat under foot.

    But its awesome!

    Thanks for this! I haven’t had a chance to ride it yet, but I picked up a Furberg 162 split from the demo sale. Stoked! :rock:

    165 Venture Divide/Spark Frankenburners/La Sportiva Spantiks
    163W Jones Solution/Phantom Alphas/Dynafit TLT5s
    162 Furberg

    Chris

    #642930
    buell
    534 Posts

    Looks like Furberg is making some changes to their design. This is from an email I got back from them regarding the new design. I look forward to finding out more.

    “For the 2015 splitboards there are some changes.
    Most importantly we have added a bit of camber to the center section, which gives the board more grip and makes it a bit more reactive.
    The camber also improves the grip while skinning.
    We have slightly increased the effective edge to improve stability and grip, but there’s still enough reverse sidecut to make the board really catch free and easy to maneuver.
    Also the durability has improved a lot with thicker bases, a more supportive wood around the edges, scratch resistant top sheet etc.
    The splitboard will be available in the following lengths:
    160, 164, 168 and 172

    In a week or two we will start taking pre-orders with an early bird discount.
    If you’d like to receive more info about the new boards and pre-ordering I’ll sign you up to our newsletter.”

    The specs for the 160:
    Waist: 265mm
    Nose: 286mm
    Tail: 275mm
    Radius: 18m
    Setback: 35mm

    #642931
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    LOL so all the things that were “so critical”to the design like the rocker perfectly matched to the sidecut radius, out the window.

    Hey firstlight, remember the board we built and they said it wouldnt work for x,y and z reasons? Looks like we were just ahead of the times 😉

    #642932
    buell
    534 Posts

    @bobgnarly wrote:

    LOL so all the things that were “so critical”to the design like the rocker perfectly matched to the sidecut radius, out the window.

    Hey firstlight, remember the board we built and they said it wouldnt work for x,y and z reasons? Looks like we were just ahead of the times 😉

    It will be interesting to get feedback from people who get the chance to ride both Furberg designs. There are a lot of happy riders on the fully rockered version. I expect this one will be good too.

    #643167
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    @bobgnarly wrote:

    LOL so all the things that were “so critical”to the design like the rocker perfectly matched to the sidecut radius, out the window.

    Hey firstlight, remember the board we built and they said it wouldnt work for x,y and z reasons? Looks like we were just ahead of the times 😉

    Camber, camber, camber :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:

    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

    #643168
    permnation
    303 Posts

    It will be interesting to get feedback from people who get the chance to ride both Furberg designs. There are a lot of happy riders on the fully rockered version. I expect this one will be good too.

    32k+ views 277 replies and counting

    #643169
    Taylor
    791 Posts

    @permnation wrote:

    It will be interesting to get feedback from people who get the chance to ride both Furberg designs. There are a lot of happy riders on the fully rockered version. I expect this one will be good too.

    32k+ views 277 replies and counting

    I expect Furberg will nail it again, and even better this time. Some between-foot camber? A little longer running surface? These are far from radical changes; fact is they’re running on feedback from some of the best riders in the world riding some of the most hardcore lines in snowboarding history… Building upon and refining already excellent, revolutionary design ideas. Furberg deserves the benefit of the doubt; looking forward to hearing ride reports.

    (Except that they’re not making a 183. :nononno: )

    @sun_rocket

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 324 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.