Forums Splitboards Furberg Snowboards
Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 324 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #642992
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @yogisnow wrote:

    Inserts done and feeling the stoke ready for Hokkaido next week!!!

    Nice Yogi! Mine is cut, and I am waiting for the weekend when a friend is going to come over to help with the carbon layup on the inner sidewall (an extra set of hands is going to be very helpful for this).
    I am going to be using ski screws for the pucks, Dynafit toes, and heel lifters. I know folks will question this approach, but they have always held up for me in the past with good epoxy in the mount. The board ends up stronger this way as well, without disturbing nearly as much of the glass fibers.
    Did you use QuiverKiller stainless inserts, or…?

    #642993
    yogisnow
    42 Posts

    Q killers for the touring bracket and heel risers.
    They seemed to have held well on two boards this year..
    T nuts for the binding plates. Will use the factory inserts and Markus’s solid slider pucks.
    Very solid nice pucks.
    Will post a pick of it finished later.
    I used ski screws for the risers on the Rossi with out any issues yet.
    Looking forward to seeing your rig!!

    #642994
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    Got my 173 today. From the shipping label it looks like Mr.Furberg went to the post office himself 😉
    Loving the shape! Cant wait to ride it. Any tips on bindings to match this board with? Riding it as a solid for now.

    Those furberg splits looks nice. Good luck in japan!

    Btw. Seeing your pics. Does your board have marked referance points? Mine doesnt..

    #642995
    Nesse
    30 Posts

    Mine has a reference point, it’s in the middle of the inserts so i really dont see the point of it 🙂
    It takes a while to “figure out” the board, but i ended up with some additional setback. Good luck

    #642996
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    I must say I agree with Daniel, his boards are definitely something which has not been offered before for snowboarders, and I must congratulate him on going forward and taking the risk of starting a company to make these designs available.
    I have been looking for a board with this type of design for a few years now, but every company I suggested it to just continued to make the same old designs, or they added rocker to the same old shapes and called it something revolutionary. No one really wanted to take advantage of rocker, and combine it with a forward thinking shape to offer more stability, control, and turn type options for the rider. 8-10 m sidecut radii make no sense for advanced riders who know how to turn, just as experienced skiers do not use deep sidecut, or “parabolic” skis-those designs are for intermediates, making it easy for them to learn to carve at moderate speeds on groomed resort runs.
    Thanks Daniel!

    Wow, first time I’ve seen this thread. Nice to see some logic when it comes to sidecut and the reverse sidecut starting where the contact point makes too much sense. I really hope someone develops a split with these ideas but into a stiffer big mountain style that isn’t so wide (the 162 furberg is 264mm at waist). This design in a 161-163 with a blunt nose, normal width for faster edge to edge (254mm-260mm waist), stiffer flex, non rocker tail, rocker nose, mellow camber under foot would be the ultimate freeride machine!

    #642997
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    BG: I suspect that you have considered this, but anyway…
    Remember, that with this shallow a sidecut, the average width of the board is much narrower than the typical 8-10 meter radius board. As an example, my 173 furberg has a 27 cm waist, but it is no wider at the feet than my 166cm length by 26 cm width Venture Storm.

    I am sure Buell can weigh in on his observation of the width of his shorter furberg, and how it compares edge to edge vs. his “narrower” custom Prior-I think he probably has relatively small feet.

    #642998
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    Yeah I thought of that when I posted it :p
    So it can be wider at the waist and not lose edge to edge quickness I’m guessing. Cool 8)

    #642999
    buell
    534 Posts

    @bgnight wrote:

    Wow, first time I’ve seen this thread. Nice to see some logic when it comes to sidecut and the reverse sidecut starting where the contact point makes too much sense. I really hope someone develops a split with these ideas but into a stiffer big mountain style that isn’t so wide (the 162 furberg is 264mm at waist). This design in a 161-163 with a blunt nose, normal width for faster edge to edge (254mm-260mm waist), stiffer flex, non rocker tail, rocker nose, mellow camber under foot would be the ultimate freeride machine!

    Funny, it took me a while to open this thread too. All kinds of interesting things on Splitboard.

    I agree with you on a narrower board for corn riding where you do not need float. On my 11m 158 BC split from Prior, I stayed with the stock 245 waist. I ended up with a quite narrow nose and tail. Powder riding is compromised.

    The 162 Furberg’s edge to edge speed is just fine. It does not feel clunky. I rode it back to back in powder and tracked powder with a Prior MFR 162 hybrid rocker (camber between the bindings, 250 waist) and the Prior was quite a bit slower edge to edge.

    From riding various rockered and not rockered boards I am of the opinion that it is not the waist width that you have to put on edge, it is the nose and tail widths. Basically the widest points of the board that are on the snow during transitions have a large effect on transition speed.

    Below are the specs for the Furberg 162 and the Winterstick ST 162. Note that even with the fairly large 10.4 sidecut of the Winterstick, the Furberg still has quite a bit narrower nose and tail.

    162 Furberg:
    Nose 287
    Waist 264
    Tail 277
    Sidecut 16

    162 Winterstick ST:
    Nose Width 293
    Waist Width 253
    Tail Width 289
    Sidecut 10.4

    #643000
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    This thread makes me think there is a gonna be a revolution in big mtn snowboard shapes on the near horizon. I currently ride a Solution, but I think that design is flawed and still influenced by what could be called the dark ages of snowboard design.

    So with the 20m sidecuts you can add lots of taper and still be stable on steeps correct? This and the fact the tips and tail go to a reverse sidecut after the contact points end? The big concern is with such a large sidecut you can’t really carve a tight radius turn on hard snow without changing your whole riding style. You would have to skid the board instead carving an edge. So for resort riding on groomers how would a 20m sidecut ride? Wouldn’t you just be skidding instead of carving? If you were purely riding on the edge you basically wouldn’t be able to make any turns I would think. When I carve a 9-10m sidecut board on a groomer I wouldn’t want a bigger sidecut because 9-10m seems like the sweet spot as far as carving at high speeds for big turns. 20m in theory would mean you would basically just go straight on edge unless you skidded to go tighter…….confused :scratch:

    …in pow though no one carves an edge, thus the 20m sidecut makes sense.

    #643001
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    People carve on race boards…They often have bigger sidecuts than 20 meters, same with skis…

    #643002
    buell
    534 Posts

    Maybe Daniel will chime in again. FWIW, here are my thoughts and experience.

    BG, I tried carving the 162 on groom. It will absolutely carve big turns down the fall line, but you cannot bring it around far enough to control your speed before you run out of groom, as you say, without skidding. It will slarve groomers just fine, but It is not made for carving groomers. I might try my alpine hardboots on it to see if I can get enough power over it.

    I asked Daniel if he had plans to make a smaller version. I am really fascinated at the moment by little but stable and fast snowboards. I have done the big snowboard thing.

    My 162 rides big for its length and really likes to be pushed hard. It is fast. It is stiff to maneuver at slow speeds. The only issue I have had with it is when I rode it on a cat track the other day in very low visibility and high winds. Not the easiest board to slow down on a narrow cat track when you are not positive where the edge of the run is (just like a big sidecut alpine board). On more open slopes and powder it is fine though and handles chopped snow and mixed snow very well.

    I have found it usually difficult and dangerous to make true (pencil track) carves in the backcountry as the snow is typically too soft, too bumpy, or too inconsistent. Most every backcounty turn is a slarve or a skidded turn.

    In the BC, since you are slarving anyway, the big sidecut is less relevant to turn size. The benefit is that it does not hook you into an unwanted or too tight of a turn like most normal sidecuts can. It is much smoother and does not react as much when going from different snow conditions during a turn (powder to windpack or sun crust, frozen corn to slush).

    With the bigger sidecut the edge hold is far better and far more immediate because you do not have to bend the board so far just to engage the sidecut between the bindings. It puts edge pressure between the bindings rather than too much far out at the nose and tail when the edge is engaged.

    In powder, this board will turn pretty tight with your standard powder turn technique. It also has a few other turn types and is fast and stable. The wider waist with a narrower nose and tail also puts more of the forces created when riding powder between your feet and reduces the amount that the nose gets pushed around (which really bugs me on softer, big nosed tapered shapes).

    I do think that the rocker enables the large sidecut on this board to remain maneuverable. If camber were pushing the nose and tail into the snow, it would be much harder to make slarved turns.

    #643003
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    Great description. Thanks!

    So with most boards 8-10m sidecuts and widely accepted as functional, and furbergs anywhere from 16-20m, why can’t there be a sweet spot in the 11-15m range???

    …and I’ve done the big snowboard thing too. I rode my entire 3rd year on a 175 glissade. Being 5’9 145lbs as yourself, I think it made me a stronger rider but I wouldn’t want to do it again!

    #643004
    yogisnow
    42 Posts

    All done and ready!!!
    We will see how she rides next week..

    #643005
    NickDrake
    46 Posts

    Can someone who has their board set it on it’s base to get picture of the rocker profile?

    #643006
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    As rocker is somewhat subtle on any board, it would be very hard to take a picture which really showed it accurately.
    That said, the description which Daniel gives of the rocker profile is quite accurate. There is a very gentle rocker between the bindings, then a flat section from the binding area almost to the edge contact points (which are a long distance back from the nose and tail of the board), followed by long, gently rockered nose and tail sections. The long, gentle rocker at the nose and tail should allow these sections to aid in the float, instead of having a rather abrupt radius which tends to plow the snow.
    I spent a little time watching vid of the Chamonix World Freeride Tour stop this evening, and noted how much the riders appeared to be fighting the deep sidecuts of their boards-with the boards bucking and trying to hook up all the time…

    #643007
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    @yogisnow wrote:

    All done and ready!!!
    We will see how she rides next week..

    Looking good! Nice to se that you have managed to use the predrilled inserts.
    Would love some review of this board with a DIY job.

    #643008
    mtsurfr
    48 Posts

    Barrows, do you have enough time on that board yet to give some thoughts on the ride? Also, how long did it take to hear back from the company? emailed them a few days ago, but haven’t heard anything back yet. Thanks

    #643009
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @mtsurfr wrote:

    Barrows, do you have enough time on that board yet to give some thoughts on the ride? Also, how long did it take to hear back from the company? emailed them a few days ago, but haven’t heard anything back yet. Thanks

    I have not ridden it yet; I am building a carbon fiber sidewall on the cut edge, and getting it just right is a bit of work (next time I will build a mold to do this). Plus, the snow is so crappy and dangerous here, that I probably would not ride a new board anyway (I was just out today, please Ullr, bless us with much needed snow).
    Daniel seems to answer all e-mails personally, and sometimes it can take him a few days-right now I suspect he is busy with ISPO, this is the big European Ski Show, so that may delay any response for a bit. Trade Shows can be very busy, and furberg snowboards is clearly a small operation.

    #643010
    mtsurfr
    48 Posts

    What do you think of the construction??? If something were to happen it would be a bitch to get repaired/replaced. Im looking for a big mtn solid board, and I’ve never ridden a board with a sidecut rad longer than 9.3m on my solution 168, but im always up for trying something new, and I love the theory behind it, i’ve never understood why snowboards had such small sidecut rad vs skis. Considering a Venture Odin, a Furberg, or maybe something custom. I want something bomber (unlike my Jones, which is pretty tore up after 15 days of riding), lots of rocks up here in montana 🙂 Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

    #643011
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @mtsurfr wrote:

    What do you think of the construction??? If something were to happen it would be a bitch to get repaired/replaced. Im looking for a big mtn solid board, and I’ve never ridden a board with a sidecut rad longer than 9.3m on my solution 168, but im always up for trying something new, and I love the theory behind it, i’ve never understood why snowboards had such small sidecut rad vs skis. Considering a Venture Odin, a Furberg, or maybe something custom. I want something bomber (unlike my Jones, which is pretty tore up after 15 days of riding), lots of rocks up here in montana 🙂 Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

    It is pretty hard to speculate about board construction on a new board… The furberg does have a full wood core, with no joints visible when I cut it in half to split it. Unlike many boards , the wood core continues all the way to the tip and tail. I asked Daniel about the sidewalls, and he confirmed they are UHMW ptex, like most quality boards these days. Mine came in clean, with no cosmetic flaws, no warps, and nothing which would indicate a quality problem. After cutting, both board halves still matched in terms of rocker profile-this is a good sign that the laminate was not assymetrically stressed during the layup and pressing.
    I can vouch for the durability of Venture-they are not the lightest boards around, but they are bomber with very high quality construction, made in Colorado by snowboarders-Venture makes their own cores from carefully sourced and selected wood and pays a lot of attention to construction details.
    Of course, hitting rocks hard is going to put the hurt on any board…

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 324 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.