Forums Splitboards Furberg Snowboards
Viewing 20 posts - 301 through 320 (of 324 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #643229
    chrishami
    194 Posts

    My 165 furberg twin arrived last week… nice looking deck, the main thing I noticed was that the topsheet is rough, unlike their previous years boards with the very smooth topsheets.

    It’s not looking like I will get out on this board anytime soon, we need more snow. I did ride the chair yesterday with my kids at Wolf Creek, boney but still the first day out is always fun.

    167 furberg
    163/26 Venture Helix

    #643230
    IceCoast070
    27 Posts

    @chrishami wrote:

    My 165 furberg twin arrived last week… nice looking deck, the main thing I noticed was that the topsheet is rough, unlike their previous years boards with the very smooth topsheets.

    When did you order yours? I ordered my split in early Sept. as part of the pre-order but haven’t gotten it yet. Not that I can use it yet but i’m impatient.

    #643231
    chrishami
    194 Posts

    @icecoast070 wrote:

    @chrishami wrote:

    My 165 furberg twin arrived last week… nice looking deck, the main thing I noticed was that the topsheet is rough, unlike their previous years boards with the very smooth topsheets.

    When did you order yours? I ordered my split in early Sept. as part of the pre-order but haven’t gotten it yet. Not that I can use it yet but i’m impatient.

    Mine’s a solid. Not sure they’re shipping splits yet. I ordered in September too.

    167 furberg
    163/26 Venture Helix

    #643232
    IceCoast070
    27 Posts

    @chrishami wrote:

    @icecoast070 wrote:

    @chrishami wrote:

    My 165 furberg twin arrived last week… nice looking deck, the main thing I noticed was that the topsheet is rough, unlike their previous years boards with the very smooth topsheets.

    When did you order yours? I ordered my split in early Sept. as part of the pre-order but haven’t gotten it yet. Not that I can use it yet but i’m impatient.

    Mine’s a solid. Not sure they’re shipping splits yet. I ordered in September too.

    Funny enough, right after i posted that I got the following update from them:

    “Unfortunately we’ve had some delay with the production, but we’ll finally have the last splitboards in stock at the end of next week. Your board will be shipped within the first two days after the boards have arrived.”

    #643233
    sandman
    22 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    @tln wrote:

    Hi guys.
    I was looking on furberg since it was released. Looks really interesting to me.
    I also own swallowtails, and we all know that is fun to.

    Does anyone compared riding long swallow to furberg?
    I want to get one, but don’t think I really need one and not sure if it get much use, if I have a swallow.

    furberg is a very different board to most swallows, not comparable at all.

    Barrows (et all),

    How would you compare the furberg to the Prior Spearhead 178? I am curious about the new shape with camber, but also would like to hear thoughts on it.

    My concerns are that I am used to riding Rad-Air Tanker 200’s :thatrocks: and a couple custom Tinkler’s (a 202 and 205 both swallowtails based off of some of the Tanker specs :rock: ) and even the Split Spearhead 178 I had briefly felt very short and soft for me :banghead: .

    Additionally, I am 5’9″ and roughly 210 lbs with size 10.5-11 boots and ride fairly aggressively.

    cheers,
    sandy

    #643234
    buell
    534 Posts

    Hey Sandy,

    I am not sure anyone here has ridden the new cambered design Furberg. It may be more beefy than the previous model.

    Based on several days on a first year 162 Furberg and lots of time on 166 Prior Spearheads, I seriously doubt the 172 length Furberg will be enough board for you. The 162 handles mixed conditions far better than the Spearhead. It floats just as well in powder and does not get pushed around like the big nose of the Spearhead. There is a looseness to the Furberg that is a bit different than the looseness of the Spearhead, but they are both very maneuverable in powder.

    Buell

    #643235
    sandman
    22 Posts

    @buell wrote:

    Hey Sandy,

    I am not sure anyone here has ridden the new cambered design Furberg. It may be more beefy than the previous model.

    Based on several days on a first year 162 Furberg and lots of time on 166 Prior Spearheads, I seriously doubt the 172 length Furberg will be enough board for you. The 162 handles mixed conditions far better than the Spearhead. It floats just as well in powder and does not get pushed around like the big nose of the Spearhead. There is a looseness to the Furberg that is a bit different than the looseness of the Spearhead, but they are both very maneuverable in powder.

    Buell

    Thanks Buell,

    That was kind of what I expected, but it is good to hear from others that have ridden the boards. Hope you have a good winter this year. :disco:

    cheers,
    sandy

    #643236
    Hendu
    21 Posts

    @sandman wrote:

    @barrows wrote:

    @tln wrote:

    Hi guys.
    How would you compare the furberg to the Prior Spearhead 178? I am curious about the new shape with camber, but also would like to hear thoughts on it.

    My concerns are that I am used to riding Rad-Air Tanker 200’s :thatrocks: and a couple custom Tinkler’s (a 202 and 205 both swallowtails based off of some of the Tanker specs :rock: ) and even the Split Spearhead 178 I had briefly felt very short and soft for me :banghead: .

    Additionally, I am 5’9″ and roughly 210 lbs with size 10.5-11 boots and ride fairly aggressively.

    Hey Sandy

    I’ve got an older 178 Spearhead split (camber) and a Furberg 173 solid from last year. I feel near equal in terms of their maneuverability off piste, with the furbeg having the slight edge (maybe due to the rocker). However on piste I miss the camber in the furberg as you cannot load it up in the turn and spring into the next one. Maybe that’s improved in this years model with the camber.

    I still haven’t managed to try a Tanker even though I’ve been Switzerland for a few years. But I think both would be much stiff than the 200 Tanker.

    Adam

    #643237
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @sandman wrote:

    @barrows wrote:

    @tln wrote:

    Hi guys.
    I was looking on furberg since it was released. Looks really interesting to me.
    I also own swallowtails, and we all know that is fun to.

    Does anyone compared riding long swallow to furberg?
    I want to get one, but don’t think I really need one and not sure if it get much use, if I have a swallow.

    furberg is a very different board to most swallows, not comparable at all.

    Barrows (et all),

    How would you compare the furberg to the Prior Spearhead 178? I am curious about the new shape with camber, but also would like to hear thoughts on it.

    My concerns are that I am used to riding Rad-Air Tanker 200’s :thatrocks: and a couple custom Tinkler’s (a 202 and 205 both swallowtails based off of some of the Tanker specs :rock: ) and even the Split Spearhead 178 I had briefly felt very short and soft for me :banghead: .

    Additionally, I am 5’9″ and roughly 210 lbs with size 10.5-11 boots and ride fairly aggressively.

    cheers,
    sandy

    I owned a 178 Spearhead split for a few days… I loved it for maching in open powder fields, but that was about all. At my weight (170-175 lbs) I was not able to bend the tail enough to get quick turns out of it in the trees, this made the Spearhead too limited of a board for me so I sold it.
    My furberg is much “less” of a board than Spearhead was, softer, much more manueverable, etc, so it sounds like the furberg would not be “enough” of a board for you. Sounds like you want something stiffer for sure, maybe look at a big Dupraz with their stiffest flex option or something, those are pretty cool splits, I have seen them in person as Bola at All Boards Sports here in Boulder carries them.

    #643238
    Ben Reynolds
    35 Posts

    The new 2015 Furberg 160 split and 157 Freeride Twin arrived last week here in Alaska. The boards look really good. There is actually quite a lot of camber between the bindings now and the sidecut on the split was lengthened even more. Last year I rode the 162 with 16 meters. This years 160 has 18.

    #643239
    HikeforTurns
    1113 Posts

    Nice, still haven’t gotten mine yet. I thought they were coming with voile? I guess I can just sell the clips. Also, how would you describe the color on the split, cuz it almost looks seafoam green compared to the grey twin. :nononno:

    #643240
    Ben Reynolds
    35 Posts

    Yeah its not as seafoam green as the photo makes it appear, its a lot more pale and neutral of a color in person. The top sheet seems to be ptex, which will hold up better to skinning rather than a normal top sheet which can crack. Their distributor in Idaho at the fly shop received a batch of boards a couple weeks ago. Hampus said they were a bit behind on production of a couple lengths. Should be coming soon!
    On a side note, thinking of giving Karakoram a try again after several years on Sparks. Anyone here see the Prime system or tried it out?

    #643241
    HikeforTurns
    1113 Posts

    Yeah no biggie, wouldn’t be riding it around here for a bit yet anyway. Snow is finally falling though! :disco:

    #643242
    permnation
    303 Posts

    Thanks for the pics! Our solid fleet should be here on Tuesday, much anticipation to compare, fondle, and carpet-jib.

    @ben Reynolds wrote:

    This years 160 has 18.

    Besides the twins, wms, and the addition of camber, the straight 18 across the freeride range has me the most excited. I love the old 167 with 18m, and the 162 with 16m loved almost equally. The 160 with 18m sounds like a little missile, specs-wise. I’ll report back on Tuesday.

    #643243
    Ben Reynolds
    35 Posts

    The new Furberg splits do come with Voile hardware. I just prefer the K-Clips and switched them out right away. I know some tests show the chinese hooks can be better if set up perfect.. but really who doesn’t appreciate the way the K-Clips just suck the board halves together and keep the whole package lower profile.

    #643244
    96avs01
    875 Posts

    @ben Reynolds wrote:

    but really who doesn’t appreciate the way the K-Clips just suck the board halves together and keep the whole package lower profile.

    I wish my Furberg had come with Voile hooks as opposed to K-clips. So I guess the answer to your question would be, “this guy” thumbs pointed at self. YMMV

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

    Chris

    #643245
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @96avs01 wrote:

    @ben Reynolds wrote:

    but really who doesn’t appreciate the way the K-Clips just suck the board halves together and keep the whole package lower profile.

    I wish my Furberg had come with Voile hooks as opposed to K-clips. So I guess the answer to your question would be, “this guy” thumbs pointed at self. YMMV

    and… this guy, I much prefer well set up Voile hooks…

    #643246
    Ben Reynolds
    35 Posts

    Can’t teach old splitboarders new tricks I guess : )

    #643247
    permnation
    303 Posts

    @96avs01 wrote:

    I wish my Furberg had come with Voile hooks as opposed to K-clips.

    This was heard a few times in Silverton.

    We received our solid fleet today. These freerides look like a whole different animal, version 2.0. I’ll save the speculation until I ride them, but the freerides all look like rippers to me. The topsheet is similar to a rental board in a good way, shape is different, logo is clean with specs, did I mention the shape is different…sorta pintailish. Laying next to a previous year model, the differences are intriguing. My eyes see a grayish sea foam green in the freeride and a pale cardboard brown in the twin. Until it snows….

    #683159
    Skijor AK
    33 Posts

    I have been riding a 168 2014/15 Furberg a few times now and have some details.
    Construction: The board has an acceptable level of craftsmanship. While its no Venture or NS, the Voile hooks seem to keep it together better than some boards I have seen (some runs of K2 for example). The top sheet is grey-green which is kind of ugly in a room but is absolutely beautiful in the white snow–very DPS like. The base is in need of waxing and says “furberg” on one side The top sheet has some texture on it which seems to be ultra-durable but might have some potential for snow build up. After clanking my nose and tail together on the skin track the top sheet seems to hold up to abuse. I haven’t noticed any snow build up as of yet, even in 30-35 degree weather weather and sticky snow.

    Skinning: The way up, with the little bit of camber, is wonderful. The board is wide (27 waist?) which allows me to adjust my Sparks bindings all the way back and give myself a little bit more toe-clearance for skinning in steeps. This is important since I use Fitwells that are about a 1/2 inch longer than my other soft boots. However, this width might cause some problems in a narrow skin track. I was in softer snow while skinning but realized that the track was much wider after I went through.

    The Ride: Awesome. I got lucky and found a few untouched and powdery summits to test it out on. In the deep powder the board planes on top with out having to apply pressure to the back foot. The board is just so easy to ride and turning is intuitive. I was worried about getting too long of a board but found that it was rather nimble, responsive, and easy to turn. When I hit a few icy spots under the powder the edges bit in and slowed me down without hooking and flipping me over. I will report more when I find some more variable and steep conditions to try it out on. One awkward moment in riding was on a “cat-track” type ski out on a snomobile trail. Turning on flats at super slow speeds was strange as it was kind of a pivot instead of a lean-style carve. Maybe I will get better at this. When it is steep and deep, however, I was impressed.

    I did get to ride the prior, non-cambered version of the Furberg and, in my brief experience, didn’t notice any differences in ride.

    Sking (a surprising benefit) In one exit, I had to turn the board into ski mode to push myself out of a long and flat exit. Unluckily, there was one more downhill in store which I did not go back into board mode for. However, the long side cut makes the board much less awkward to “ski” than previous splitboards I have tried to ski. Although I wasn’t quite dropping knees, I would say that I actually had fun and was in control. I was able to both pizza and french-fry on command! I end up having to do this more than I would like to admit so it actually is a plus for me!

    Overall this set-up is approaching ideal (especially if you have bigger feet (size 11) but hate typical “wide” boards like me).

Viewing 20 posts - 301 through 320 (of 324 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.