Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 1,423 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #830874
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    karkis, thanks for sharing! I was out with Phantom Splitboard Bindings yesterday, and noticed he was riding some modded Atomic Backlands Ultimates. I would suggest that for those not afraid of a few mods and who are looking for very soft (in terms of medially/laterally/torsionally) flexing boots they should consider the Ultimates. The Ultimates use a slightly different cuff arrangement, with a more minimal cuff which provides a lot of flexibility. On would probably have to add a cuff buckle to use the Phantom lever (preferred!), and this also allows separate adjustment of cuff tension and lean lock (also preferred) as you have here with the Backlands Carbon. Of course adding the buckle on the cuff should be easy. John was really enjoying the ride quality.

    #813399
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Yep, gotta agree with taylor on the sizing thing. I have size 10.5-11 feet, ride in 28 mondo boots, and require a 26 cm waist minimum on a standard sidecut board (9-10 meter radius), and prefer a bit wider, especially with my preference for tapered shapes. And the 161 milli is not really long enough either with less than 120 cm of edge contact.
    More sizes would be nice. Not everyone is Buell’s size! At just under 6’2″, I need at a minimum a 166 in a standard shape board (around 125-130 cm edge contact), and 160-163 can work for me in a cut off tail shape like this, but only with true 125 CM of contact, otherwise my height is not stabilized, and the tendency for the nose to get overloaded, and trip is high (yes, I have tried shorter, and it does not work).

    #809150
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    I have been testing boards with a bunch of different radii over the last few years. I have ridden 20, 18, 16, and 14 M radius boards, along with the usual 8-10 M radius boards.
    I think the sweet spot for me for all around backcountry use is in the 14-16 M radius area. This allows for the feel, additional edge control on steeps, and more forgiving nature of the longer sidecuts, without loosing too much response at lower speeds on harder snow.
    Good chance I’ll be on one of these 2018 furbergs in a 165…

    #803168
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Yeah, good conversation going. For me, so far I agree with 96av. I am not willing to try and catch a bad crevasse fall with a static rope. By no means am I saying it could not be done, but like I said, I have caught a serious crevasse fall, and the risk of getting yanked off your feet and starting to slide before you can get an arrest is real (especially with a rope of two and you are heading downhill on frozen snow).
    I actually love the hunter hitch myself, for snowboard mountaineering situations where you might do one short rap, I am willing to deal with the rope twist (and yes, it is true, the munter turns the rope into a twisted mess). But for something more technical, like the Grand Teton with lots of belaying and repelling, I would always carry a Reverso. Of course on a line like that you are going to have two 60 m twin ropes as well, so it is quite different than what I am discussing here: occasional rope use for rapping in, checking avy conditions, and glacier travel.
    Love to hear of more people’s actual experience with the Rad cord though.

    I will discuss with one of my partners as well. I am considering a Rainier trip next spring, I know a lot of people even travel without a rope for S side routes, kind of crazy to me.; some of the best Alpinists in the world have been killed due to their (over)confidence in being able to read glacier conditions in both the Alps and AK.

    #803070
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Mammut also has a 6mm snow oriented/belay cord that is available separately.

    Actually, Petzl does sell the rope separately, this is what I was referring to. I already have plenty of gear, but that rope is super light compared to anything else.
    My point of posting was to see if anyone here has had any experience with it. My concern is that a static cord is going to make catching a crevasse fall more difficult. I have caught a serious crevasse fall (on a dynamic rope of course), and I am almost certain I would not want to rely on a static cord for this, even though it could keep the length of fall shorter, if you could self arrest instantly without getting pulled out of position due to the more violent catch…
    Currently I use half of a super light Mammut twin/1/2 rope (it is rated as both) for splitboarding, (I just split it with a friend and cut a 60m into two pieces, so we each have a 30m section). This works great, and could even take a single leader fall if one had to belay a short lead somewhere (top out on ice, or through a short cliff band perhaps). And one section at 30m is perfect for a glacier rope for two.

    #802376
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Barrows, maybe you don’t need to get the Millisurf. ; )

    It is clearly designed to be a super light, fun, capable board that is particularly geared toward powder, even steeper powder and some mixed conditions. That does not mean it is designed to be ideal for you. I am excited they have produced it and only wish it had been out for this winter.

    Agreed!

    mg: yeah, a board with a significantly longer radius can improve skinning, as the straighter edge does grip a little better in steep sidehilling situations. They also tend to track in a straight line a bit better, and the wider waist inherent in a straighter sidecut floats more when skinning, so it can save a bit of energy if breaking trail in the deep. But these are really just what I would consider side benefits!

    #802299
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Buell, I have to respectfully disagree. Just because it is possible to ride 50 degree frozen shit with a 8 M radius board (and I have done it) and appear to be smooth and in control does not mean that an 16 m radius in the same situation would not have been better.
    As you mention, these design parameters should not be considered separately though. How different sidecuts behave is inextricably linked to flex, and especially, torsional flex specifically. I prefer a longer radius, and a board designed to have fairly firm flex in torsion, the firm torsion increases response, while the long radius keeps the board stable.
    I canot emphasize enough though, how sketchy deep sidecuts an be. I have never been more uncomfortable than when dropping in on a 50 degree tight pitch, with shitty frozen sun cupped snow, to stop and feel like I was hanging from the tip and tail of the board, and then to look down and see air between the mid section of the board and the slope!

    Less deep sidecuts allow more of the edge pressure to be underfoot, which allows easier control of that edge pressure. What I am trying to avoid is the the overpressure feeling that many deep sidecut boards have at the tip and tail, which makes them hooky and prone to throwing the rider out of the center of the board, or to pull the board too deeply into a turn when attempting to feather the edge, as on initiating turns on the steeps.

    Additionally, less deep sidecuts float way better through turns in pow riding, staying high and fast when turning, rather than diving as soon as board is put on edge.

    Now JimW in your example has moderated the drawbacks of deep radius by riding a very short board, and as you are of a smaller stature yourself, your experiences may be somewhat similar. At 6’1″+, the smallest I can go is around 166 cm overall length in a trad board (say 126-128 edge contact) or maybe 160ish in a truncated tail board (achieving similar 126ish edge contact). Any shorter than this (and I have tried) and I do not have enough board in front of my front foot for stability. When one is taller the higher center of gravity requires longer length to achieve stability (not going over the bars). Just as a a taller person rides a mountain bike with a bit more wheelbase.

    There are ways to mitigate the “problem” of a sidecut too deep. Like how Never Summer makes the sidecut nearly straight through the center section of the board (I was very surprised how well the Never Summer Prospector handled despite its overall deep sidecut and too much taper when I mistakenly dropped in on a cliffed out 50+ line with shit snow). But every time I get on a board with less sidecut I am continually reminded of how much easier it is to ride, and how much confidence it gives in steep situations and variable snow. This happened to me very dramatically, even when going from the Prospector to the Chimera Dum Dum (16 m radius).
    I will admit though, on those (very rare for me) resort days, do prefer a more conventional sidecut, mostly because of the need for gaper avoidance in slow riding areas around lifts and at run intersections, and for getting off lifts with the back foot free. But that is a mostly packed snow thing, a condition never encountered in the back country.

    Even now, when I have somewhat moderated my desire for super steeps/icy mountaineering descents, and started to transition to a more moderate emphasis in my riding, I still prefer the less sidecut.

    #802160
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Permnation: Peter Bauer was World Cup Slalom specialist, and he has a penchant for really loading up the sidecut and flex of the board and then using that energy to accelerate out of turns… he mentioned this to me once when I suggested less sidecut. Of course, backcountry conditions are rarely appropriate for this riding style! But, like most snowboard companies, Amplid sells boards developed mostly for typical inbounds riding conditions…
    We have all these companies now jumping on the “new shapes” bandwagon (really most of these are old shapes from the 80s though!). But they all still have the standard 8-9 meter radii sidecuts, I really find it too bad that more folks are not exploring longer radii in combination with the tapered pow shapes… Less sidecut equals more float, especially through turns (as anyone who has ridden a Furberg or Chimera Dum Dum knows full well). The logical extension of this is seen very obviously in the design of many noboards, often with full reverse shapes (Grassroots etc). While a full reverse does not have the versatility I need, a board with 14-18 m radii really helps both in float and smooth control in variable and steeps. I would love to see these short tail, tapered shapes married with less sidecut.
    Wow, I am surprised the 161 Millisurf does not have more contact length, weird, Buell, like you are saying, maybe they are not measuring it in regard to the sidecut, and are leaving out the early rise portion. The Trapper Trout Trap looks pretty good in this regard to me, a 160 squarish tail with 126 cm of contact and a really good nose shape.
    For me, I would love to see a 162 with a nice early rise pow nose (squared off) and 126-128 contact, and 15 mm of taper and 14 meter radius, combine this with a 26.8 W for 28 mondo boots and a medium/stiff flex…

    #802101
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Wow, I am very interested in more info on the Millisurf… I am thinking this may be a daily driver for me. Guys, we need to really think about length in regards to float… a super long pointy nose like on a Dupraz does nothing, it is just 20 cm of extra board which is not even contacting the snow. a 161 millisurf with it’s short tail looks like it probably has equal contact length to that of a 167-168 standard freeride shape, and equal to a much longer “pointy nose” type board. With a bit more waist width, it looks like the 161 Millisurf will have plenty of float… too bad I could never convince Peter Bauer to put a 12-16 meter radius and 26.8 waist on it for even more float!

    Still, this board looks versatile enough to ride not just pow, but tech steeps and variable as well. The nose design is certainly going to be nice and forgiving in tricky conditions, and the lightweight combined with the short tail would make even desperate hop turns easier to manage. If the new anti vibe tech really works, perhaps Amplid has totally solved carbon’s tendency to have some bad vibes…

    Buell, any ideas on specs, specifically sidecut radius and taper amounts? Sure hope there is at least a cm of taper…

    #799246
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    I do not use leashes.

    Note, with a free heel you will never want to use the Dynafit toes unlocked, they will pop right out with the slightest force. Even locked they will still release around (approximately) DIN 10 or so.

    If you have problems with Dynafit toes releasing even when locked (and it does happen) you toe levers are probably worn, Dynafit (Salewa NA in America) can provide new toe levers and they are easy to replace. The green toe pieces are better than the red ones at a very slight weight penalty, I am using those mostly now.

    One other thing, you can put a thin shim under the tip of the toe piece baseplate (perhaps .2-.4 mm or so) to make the lock a bit stronger, the green toe pieces actually come with a plastic shim for just this purpose.

    Perhaps someone doing a lot of aggressive split skiing might want leashes, especially if a skin less split ski could disappear into the abyss… But I still do not know of anyone using leashes.

    #790801
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Hans,

    The (very soft) windslab was only present right at the top of the lines. We kind of expected to release it, although the second one was a bit larger than expected. The two lines at the end with the releases are relatively safe, relatively short lines, which run out into a frozen lake, so low consequence. On this day bigger lines, above treeline were totally off limits as far as I was concerned 😉 !

    #790715
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    It is very important to consider the difference between evaluating a board for hard snow (groomers/resort/race boards) and for the backcountry. How a board behaves, and how specific features work are not the same for a 2 dimensional surface (hard snow) vs a 3 dimensional surface (virtually all backcountry conditions, excepting ice).

    As to taper, it is not just to make the tail sink and the nose rise in directional riding, but I agree with Jimw that one must be careful about too much taper. Considering the same overall length of 167 cm, I have a Never Summer Prospector, and a Chimera DD-II. The Prospector has 20 mm of taper, and the DD-II I designed with 15 mm of taper. Consider that taper has a few effects in ride performance:
    1. At slow speeds, more taper allows the nose to stay up, this may help riders negotiate tight terrain where slower speeds may be necessary, or for getting going in deep pow. But, once you are starting to plane out, the advantage of taper for pow riding is negligible.
    2. Increasing taper also makes the tail of the board ride looser. That is, all other things being equal, more taper makes the board surfier, more slash, and more playful. it allows the rider more control over altering turn shape during the turn, and feathering the tail is easier. This can be a great benefit in technical terrain, and/or in challenging snow conditions.
    3. But, as jimw points out, too much taper has a negative effect: it makes the nose twitchy, as it makes the entry point of the sidecut steeper, as if the board had a deeper sidecut.
    4. Taper allows one to have their stance centered in the sidecut, but still be somewhat back of the overall length of the board, and this allows for more equal weight distribution between the legs in all snow conditions (no back leg burn in pow…)

    Now, combine considerable, but not excessive, taper with a longer radius sidecut, and ahhhh. You get stability and maneuverability together, two things which are more often considered mutually exclusive. This was the design goal of the DD-II, and for me, it has been mostly achieved with 15 mm of taper, and a 16 meter sidecut radius, combined with gentle entry points of the sidecut (AKA longer sections of “reverse sidecut”).

    #788260
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Looks like the DD-II was a big hit at the Canada Splitfest!

    #785524
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Hi Jose,

    I have not ridden the XV, so will leave that to others. But, I have lots of experience on the Prospector, including icy 50 degree plus descents. I am very, very impressed with both the edge hold, the confidence which the NS Prospector gives the rider in technical icy steeps, and I would not hesitate to recommend it for those conditions. I would; take the Prospector to the most daunting, extreme, exposed steeps with confidence.

    #785179
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Toke: I guess that I was not totally clear. I am not meaning to talk about absolute edge grip, but rather, the tendency for the board to slarve, rather than carve, a turn. To be specific, the first year Furbergs very much preferred to slide through turns, rather than carve them. Of course the Furbergs could be made to carve an arc, with enough application of skill by the rider, but to my preference, the tended to be a little too slarvvy and not quite carvy enough. To be sure, in terms of ultimate edge grip, a good rider could certainly get that out of them, but I am more concerned with the tendency of the board in general, if that makes sense.
    Indeed, the addition of slightly deeper sidecuts, more edge contact, and camber on the newer Furbergs should make them a little less slarvvy in tendency, as is the design goal of the Chimera DD-II.

    Like I said, too bad the new Furbergs are a bit too wide for me. I need the 168, and it is indeed quite a bit wider than previous versions. Every rider I know who has ridden the new Furbergs has noticed the slower response edge to edge of the wider versions vs. the previous models. In my experience, boards with straighter sidecuts really need to have just the right width (relative to boot size) to be retain response. I would have to ride the 164 of Furbergs current models to get the right width, and that board is too short for me. In any case, this is all down to boot size and board length preferences, and not meant to be a criticism of Furberg, just a note that the current ones are too wide for my preferences.

    #785081
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Aaa, you are comparing it to the first year Furberg. I understand now. New Furberg have plenty of grip and it is easy to ride in difficult conditions, because of camper, better nose and other improvements. Guys did helluva job in testing and developing board in just one year.

    Except that Furberg made the board too wide for good response for me, really a shame… I find with less sidecut, having the board width just right is critical in getting decent response out of it. Anyway, my point was never to say one board is better than another, it is a point of preference: the Furberg was a little too loose riding for me. The new camber ones likely would ride with a bit more grip, but like I said, they are now too wide for me.

    #785075
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Hei, Barrows can you explain why chimera have more grip than furberg. It does´t make any sense. Or does it? ?

    I like the colors. Looks like my -88 crazy banana. Chimera is just missing that banana in graffiti.

    Hey Toke: I am mainly comparing to my Furberg 172 from the first year of production. The Furberg has a 20 M radius sidecut, and has full rocker (no camber at all), in addition to very short edge contact length and long tapered tip and tail. All of those features make for a very slarvvy ride, really fun in the right conditions, but I wanted something a little more versatile, with a little more tendency to hold a carve rather than wanting to break everything into a slarve. This is of course a personal riding preference.
    The Dum Dum II has an 16 M radius sidecut, so deeper sidecut than the Furberg (but much shallower than the typical 8-9 M radius on most boards), and has some camber (as do the newer Furbergs). The deeper sidecut, the camber bumps under the feet, and the longer effective edge, all combine to offer a bit more traditional feel than the Furberg, but still, the Dum Dum II is not a trad board, as it will still slarve when you want it to…

    #784966
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Cool stick, and nice write up, Barrows. For its length, that shape delivers a ton of surface area, which I like.

    A few questions:

    Any sense of the shovel width?

    I am not home right now, so cannot measure. As one would expect with less sidecut, the nose and tail get a little narrower, and the the waist gets a little wider, to produce the same width at the feet (where it is critical). To me, the taper, width at the feet, and the average width define the performance of the board. I really hesitate on posting width numbers, as making direct width comparisons to typical boards with a 8-10 M radius sidecut will be very misleading.

    How soft is the tail?

    Medium stiff. The entire board I would describe as medium stiff. I prefer the tail to be a little softer, so I can bend it easily to make early turn exits, or to break carves into slarves, etc, in dicey tight spots. I really want some stiffness in the forebode of the board though for stability, and to be able to really rail the entrance portion of higher speed turns.

    Any idea if Allister would go bigger?

    Maybe if he gets enough requests… As far as I know he has not drawn up a longer version though, so he would probably need a fair amount of interest. Although I sure agree he “should” have at least a 172 or so for bigger folks, and correspondingly wider as well to suit 12ish feet.

    #784962
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Jason, let’s keep this thread focused on the Chimera DD-II. please feel free to PM re the bindings. Thanks, barrows

    #783897
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Just noticed this post. This is an issue for a boot fitter to solve, or, maybe you bought your boots too big. No matter what you have to get your liners molded for sure.

    Additionally, there is one other thing which is a good mod for snowboarders to consider with this boot: I like to move the buckle on the lower shell back, about .5″. To do this one drills out the rivet, and drills a new hole in the lower shell, and then use a screw river to mount the buckle in the more rearward location. This mod results in more heel hold, but be careful, and do all of the above (get the liner properly molded, and the boot fitting perfectly) before considering this mod. You can also fill the old hole with epoxy to keep the shell sealed, just make sure to rough up the surface and get it really clean (use denatured alcohol) before filling with epoxy.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 1,423 total)