Forums Splitboards Furberg Snowboards
Viewing 20 posts - 141 through 160 (of 324 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #643074
    mtsurfr
    45 Posts

    @Bjørgvin wrote:

    Nice video! Seems like you are enjoying the board 😀
    I actually enjoy the groomers when I`m trailing for the powder bowls.
    Seems like I`m really only fishing for excuses to buy another Furberg :headbang:
    Now I just need to overthink 167 vs 173 for an allround splitboard. 🙄

    Thanks. YES! Didn’t mean to sound like i don’t like it on groomers, I don’t mind the board on groomers one bit, but its just not my fav for that purpose. If your can only have one split,,, i’d say, go big or go home, the 173 does it all

    #643075
    ieism
    298 Posts

    MTsurfr: How would you compare it to your Dark Series in various conditions? I’m asking because I have a design ready to be something in between the Furberg and Dark Series (my splitboard is a Dark Series 164 and I love it) but with a little Hovercraft thrown in too.

    Your feedback would be very helpful, as you’ve got both boards.

    http://flatlandsplitfest.com/

    #643076
    mtsurfr
    45 Posts
    ieism wrote:
    MTsurfr: How would you compare it to your Dark Series in various conditions? I’m asking because I have a design ready to be something in between the Furberg and Dark Series (my splitboard is a Dark Series 164 and I love it) but with a little Hovercraft thrown in too.

    Your feedback would be very helpful, as you’ve got both boards.[/quote

    Awesome, are you building it too, or designing it and having someone else build it? Funny you should mention combining those 3 boards. I also had a Hover this year too (actually, 3 of them, all had issues 😥 )… It is still my favorite board for ripping groomers ever, and used to be my fav in the pow until i rode the Furberg. But, i gave up on Jones for a little while until they get their quality control shit figured out.

    Have you ridden the Furberg yet? I only ask because, at least for me, it was hard to understand some of the Dark Series shortcomings until I rode something ‘better’ (it was better for me, depends on who you ask i suppose). Personally, i like everything from Jones, and the Furberg better than the Dark.

    Let me start by saying, that I WAS in love with my Dark at one time, but she is not my girl anymore. It was my first stiff, ‘big mtn’ board, and I loved it right up til i started riding the londer radius sidecut on Jones Solution, and then really on the Furberg. In powder, the Fur obviously has way more float and also feels more stable at speed, but the dark is fun too, no real complaints other than leg burn,,, of course, everything is fun in pow, mmmmmm pow :drool: IMO there is NO comparison between the two in variable conditions. The fur kicks ass,,, I can barely ride my Dark anymore. Example, i never really understood how a board ‘hooks’ into turns until i rode the furberg for a while, then rode my dark series in some chopped, heavy snow. I felt totally out of control when i was going ‘fast’, and when burning down this tree-lined chute I tried to bleed off a little speed and the board grabbed and hooked into a turn so hard i got thrown head-over-heals down the chute and ended up crumpled in a group of trees… That was the last time I rode the Dark. I have since realized that ride SO MUCH faster, and in much more control on the Fur. I will keep the dark in case im ever out with friends building a kicker or something, because it has pop, and the Fur doesn’t really,,, but other than that, ill be on the furberg.

    How are you combining the two designs? That will be interesting for sure, i’d love to see some pics when its done. My thought would be, the closer you get to the Furberg design, the happier you’ll be. It might be kinda cool to see a shape similar the Furberg with some camber somewhere for pop. Hope that helps a little.

    #643077
    ieism
    298 Posts

    I don’t own a Furberg, so havent had the chance to ride one. But this has been an interesting tread and i’ve decided to build my first board this summer.

    I’m combining what I like from the Dark series; lots of edgehold and very stiff and stable. With some of the shape of the Furberg and the long radius sidecut. But it will be shorter and wider with more setback, kinda like a hovercraft.

    I’ll let you know how it works out, but the contruction will be very experimental too so I might break a few before I get it right….

    http://flatlandsplitfest.com/

    #643078
    barrows
    1489 Posts

    Hey splitters. I am at the Silverton Splitfest, and Chimera is going to have a split with long radius sidecut, and interesting rocker profile, along the same lines as the furberg. This board is in prototype form right now, but should be available in the fall. I saw the prototype here, but in a length too short for me (161-162), they will be making longer lengths, a very promising development.

    #643079
    Taylor
    771 Posts

    That’s great news, Barrows. If you would, please urge them to make a 180-ish length model; I’d buy one.

    @sun_rocket

    #643070
    96avs01
    873 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    Hey splitters. I am at the Silverton Splitfest, and Chimera is going to have a split with long radius sidecut, and interesting rocker profile, along the same lines as the furberg. This board is in prototype form right now, but should be available in the fall. I saw the prototype here, but in a length too short for me (161-162), they will be making longer lengths, a very promising development.

    Any Pics? Very interested and the 161 would work for me. :thumpsup:

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

    Chris

    #643071
    barrows
    1489 Posts

    Chris, I’ll see what I can get. I do not know how long Alistair is here. The board will ~1 cm of taper, and I think he said the 162 would have a sidecut around 14-17 m. It is still a proto, so those numbers may be subject to change. I am not entirely sue of the rocker profile either, but I am pretty sure there is no cambered sections to the board. I’ll try and get more info this evening.

    #643080
    Crille
    3 Posts

    Some furberg riding

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=13ct4uS6x8A
    its a really good board!

    #643081
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    Flott!!!
    Shows that the Furberg can handle tight terrain

    #643082
    barrows
    1489 Posts

    @taylor wrote:

    That’s great news, Barrows. If you would, please urge them to make a 180-ish length model; I’d buy one.

    Taylor: Alistair is a great guy, and seems very interested in getting input from experienced folks. I would encourage you to contact him directly via “contact” at the Chimera website. He seems to be trying lots of different and creative stuff, hopefully he sells enough boards to keep it going.

    #643083
    whistlermaverick
    310 Posts

    Board showed up last week–167
    First day last week 15-20cms of heavy snow. Set it up just a little back of center, stoked.
    Surprisingly nimble. Lots of fun. Really liking the way it rides with the rockered/tapered tail. Maybe a little too much in combination, will only find out with some pow.
    Stable at speed, rocks through chunder.

    Took it out today on some firm hardpack and softer spring conditions.
    Definitely need to pay attention on hardpack, scary to get near putting it up on edge. But who cares, its not made for that.
    Uber grip on the steeps.

    Thoughts from others on any changes.
    I think I would prefer it be stiffer in the back with either a less rockered or less tapered tail. Maybe its just because it seems a bit soft.

    Pretty sure a more shapes similar to this are going to show up and are going to make great splits.I could see a flat board(no rocker or camber) being a very good option with this shape.

    Many thanks Daniel Furberg.
    I think I see another Furberg in my future.

    .

    @j.memay

    #643084
    Taylor
    771 Posts

    Nice concise, descriptive review. Thanks, Jamie. Some questions…

    Definitely need to pay attention on hardpack, scary to get near putting it up on edge. But who cares, its not made for that.

    I assume this is because, owing to the long radius sidecut, the difference in speed required to rail it vs. the board’s comfortable slarving is too great… Correct? That is, transitioning from slarved to railed turns requires a speed gain that is inherently uncomfortable–it offers too little inherent stability in the divide between those two speed realms? (I had a 17m proto race deck I used for back-country years ago and this was the case.) Can you speak a bit more to this?

    I think I would prefer it be stiffer in the back with either a less rockered or less tapered tail. Maybe its just because it seems a bit soft.

    I’m wondering why you think so… Is it because, by your preference, it lacks tail stability, as would be needed to jam the brakes or to safely hold turns at the higher speeds that its long-radius sidecut errs toward? Can you speak a bit more to this?

    I could see a flat board (no rocker or camber) being a very good option with this shape.

    Why do you think so? How do you think it being flat would change its performance attributes in light of your preferences? What would you expect to be the performance gain? (I would expect the trade-off would be nimbility and float at lower speeds.)

    Uber grip on the steeps. Yup. Bomber chassis for that, not surprised.

    Many thanks Daniel Furberg. Amen. Furberg is long-overdue free-thinking snowboard design. Thank goodness.

    Thanks again for sharing your observations, Jamie.

    – Taylor

    @sun_rocket

    #643085
    whistlermaverick
    310 Posts

    Hey Taylor,

    Yeah the sidecut is what makes it greatly stable. With the big sidecut I didn’t want to rail it unless I’m bombing. Still factory edges, gotta get a bevel.
    When I first got on a big sidecut board I fell over when I put it on edge going slow. It tracked straight while I was leaned over, learned quick.
    Slarving, I feel like I just need to be aware if I engage the edge coming out of a turn.

    I think its my preference to want it stiffer. I haven’t ridden a lot of rockered boards. Usually when I feel uncomfortable I lean back in to the edge of my tail. I just need to adjust a bit to this board.
    Its super stable when you have your weight centered or even leaning back, but put your weight back and off to a side and the tail slides out.

    For splitting I think a flat board would be better for skinning. With a rockered nose and tail already I don’t think it needs to be rockered from the center out to the bindings too. Maybe a little less nimble but its so easy to move around already. I don’t think it being flat would make it seem any less the small board it feels like. Float…..I need to get out on it more to know.

    It won’t be a board for everyone, and won’t be good for lazy riding, but I’m stoked.
    I could even see it losing 5cms or so off the tail.

    .

    @j.memay

    #643086
    barrows
    1489 Posts

    Jamie:

    “I think its my preference to want it stiffer. I haven’t ridden a lot of rockered boards. Usually when I feel uncomfortable I lean back in to the edge of my tail. I just need to adjust a bit to this board.
    Its super stable when you have your weight centered or even leaning back, but put your weight back and off to a side and the tail slides out.”

    Agreed on the above, boards with a rocker tail and taper are not designed to be ridden with rearward weight shifts at the end of turn (to load up the tail). As you note, they are designed to be ridden with the weight generally kept centered, and without radical fore and aft weight shifts. Skiers call this type of technique “riding the ski” rather than “driving the ski” as it is common to the new school pow/freeriding rocker skis. My Venture is the same way, this is no problem once one get used to it, and it allows a greater variety of turn styles. Clearly the furberg is not designed for railing carves on groomers.

    In theory, what you mention about a flat middle section allowing for better skinning is true, but it will compromise the edge grip a little-the rockered center section brings back edge grip between the feet, where there is less pressure because of the distance of the edge from one’s feet. I have skinned my 173 DIY furberg with no problems (with G3 skins) on very steep skin tracks. I do not consider the furberg a board for spring riding, and in winter conditions it skinned very well. In fact, it handles skinning traverses especially well, likely due to the minimal sidecut.

    #643087
    TLN
    44 Posts

    Hi guys.

    That fuberg looks very interesting to me.

    But i got some questions about it.
    1. well, i’m 230 lbs rider with US13 feet, now i use NS legacy 174 with 31.8-27-31.8 geometry 8.3M radius. Fuberg have the same waist, but the tips are 279 and 290. And the board itself is 1 cm shorter. That doesn’t dooks promising to me.
    Also in a poing where i mount my binders fuberg will be probably narrower then my Legacy.
    Any opinions on this? If it only was something like 180W fuberg with 31.0-29.0-30.0 and 18M geometry.

    2. NExt one: 16M radius sounds very sweet, once you have a carve board. If it possible to carve fuberg? Not that lay-down turns like i can do with my prior, but some pencil wide paths from me. I suggest it wont hold edge very well on a hardpack because of a rocker.

    #643088
    barrows
    1489 Posts

    @tln wrote:

    Hi guys.

    That fuberg looks very interesting to me.

    But i got some questions about it.
    1. well, i’m 230 lbs rider with US13 feet, now i use NS legacy 174 with 31.8-27-31.8 geometry 8.3M radius. Fuberg have the same waist, but the tips are 279 and 290. And the board itself is 1 cm shorter. That doesn’t dooks promising to me.
    Also in a poing where i mount my binders fuberg will be probably narrower then my Legacy.
    Any opinions on this? If it only was something like 180W fuberg with 31.0-29.0-30.0 and 18M geometry.

    2. NExt one: 16M radius sounds very sweet, once you have a carve board. If it possible to carve fuberg? Not that lay-down turns like i can do with my prior, but some pencil wide paths from me. I suggest it wont hold edge very well on a hardpack because of a rocker.

    1. You are right, the 173 furberg is not going to be wide enough for your feet. I have a 173, and I have 28 mondo boots, the width is perfect for me, and about the same at the foot positions as my 26 cm waist Venture Storm.

    2. The furberg is designed as a board for off piste riding, not for riding groomed snow at a resort. That said, it actually carves GS and above radius turns quite well, and has lots of edge grip in longer radius turns. The rocker between the feet actually helps the edge grip: consider that the edge between your feet receives less pressure from your feet because of the distance of the foot away from the center of the board. Rocker between the feet brings back the edge pressure, making the pressure more evenly distributed.
    That said, the furberg is designed for off piste free riding, it will get around fine on groomers on the way to the good stuff, but if you are looking specifically for a board for carving on packed snow, get a board designed for that purpose.

    #643091
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    Splitboard version of the 167 and 173 is released in october

    #643092
    Taylor
    771 Posts

    183. Please.

    @sun_rocket

    #643093
    whistlermaverick
    310 Posts

    @Bjørgvin wrote:

    Splitboard version of the 167 and 173 is released in october

    woo hoo

    price?

    @j.memay

Viewing 20 posts - 141 through 160 (of 324 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.