Splitboard.com Forums

Take a look at furbergsnowboards.com, there are some videos there which might help answer your questions. As for jumps, a rocker tail board will never have the same pop off of lips as a camber board, the furberg lands jumps very, very well, as it is very stable and the forgiving nose and tail are so catch free that landings are generally easy. The boards are superb for steeps: David Capozzi is riding full on extreme first descents (stuff which would make me crap my pants) in Chamonix on one. As for sizing, the 162 would probably be a good all conditions board for you, with the 167 being a good choice specifically for the deepest pow days. Again, see furbergsnowboards.com to check the recommended weight ranges. The furbergs ride slightly short in comparison to traditional boards, that is the 173 (for me) is more manuverable than I would expect a board of that size to be.

Yeah I saw it on the site just wanted some feedback from some people really appreciate the info. I hear the boards move very well for their size I just don't wanna go too big and then lack maneuverability and playfulness. Might go with 162 worst case in the deep stuff ill shift the weight back a lil.
Thanx

Yeah, do what you need to with the stance, but I would suggest not moving too far back, even for pow. The furberg is designed to plane, with the entire board near the surface, and actually rides best in powder this way, rather than plowing with a tail down attitude.
Do not worry about "playfullness", any furberg is going to be more playful than traditional boards, as the tip and tail are super forgiving and loose, and the entire board is super easy to slide around, pivot, and smear.

Is that why people are suggesting upping the size from the usual reg pow board lenght you ride I normally ride 159 in pow so upping it by 8cm seems like a stretch but then again it's a board I plan on using for bc so conditions vary, I don't want to go too short and lose float but then not go too big and feel like its too big for conditions. I spoke to Tommy at Furberg he recommended the 162 said that's what he rides usually and in deep stuff takes out the 167 but less and less it seems so conditions are most likely the factor. As for stability between the two I should be fine either way on steeps and high speed right?

Well, it is up to you. My recommendation stands for your size: 162 for an all-around backcountry board, or 167 as a primarily super deep pow board.

that said, certainly the 167 will have more stability, as it is longer, and stiffer, the question you have to ask yourself is whether the 162 will have enough stability for what you want it to do. I would suspect taking Tommy's advice would be a good bet as well.

I would NOT worry about it 'lacking maneuverability', my wife, who rides a 158 jumped on my 173, and rode it just fine, she couldn't believe how easy it turned. She actually said it turned just as easily as her board. The full rocker allows the tips to slide around so easily. Her only complaint was the weight when she was on the lift. you won't have a problem maneuvering it, no matter what size you get, i promise.

That's the million dollar question well about 700$ question because if I go with the 162 and find out that its not what expected sability wise then I'm SOL. Then again if I go too big ill be thinking man this board rocks in super deep still but on reg days ill be wanting to downsize.

I will be going with a split for sure I think I will just try my luck with the 162, taking what you and Tommy said.

Thanx for the info