Forums Splitboards Divide splitboards
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 78 total)
  • Author
  • #580228
    6 Posts

    Hey guys. Lurk here once in awhile. Figured I post somthing fitting.

    Anywho. I’ve been building splitboards here in Prince Rupert B.C. For a couple years now. We use different variations of Sitka Spruce , Yellow Cedar, Red Cedar, and Paper Birch for cores. We don’t glass often, mostly just Basalt and Carbon.

    Anywho here’s my latest
    Full carbon laminates/ biax over triax
    Yellow/Sitka Core

    Here’s some older stuff

    Real maple leaves

    6 Posts

    We have a facebook page if anybody wants to see what were up too.


    564 Posts


    That was Pontus

    1382 Posts

    I love the shape of your skis but why aren’t your boards shaped the same in the nose??? The skis looks like they all have reverse sidecut past the contact points. That’s what a lot of people on here want their boards (i.e. furburg) All the boards I saw on your FB page looks like the same hooky noses on every other snowboard out there. Maybe I’m wrong? I just wanted something to get excited about. Anyone can make a snowboard. We need progressive shapes! You have some specs for us?

    They all look beautifully constructed btw :thumpsup:

    For example, in this photo you have really nice, progressive shapes in your skis then the snowboard looks like an after thought, carbon copy of every other board out there. I want a board with the same shape as skis 1-3:

    And again:

    I’m guessing you’re skier

    Can I special order 1 ski with a 25.4cm waist?? 😆 ….I’m actually serious

    If you want to make your 1st two posts on a splitboarding site promoting your ski company you should show us you are serious about offering us something we want. Sorry I come off harsh, I’m just sick of the lack of snowboard shape progression when (particularly reverse sidecut noses). A million companies making cookie cutter shapes and maybe 4 or 5 are actually doing something in the right direction.

    6 Posts

    Here my new pow ride next to another cookie cutter shape as you call them.

    The other boards you looked at are mostly customs for other people.
    I build them what they want.

    It’s harder to to talk a person into a crazy shape when they don’t know better. And that’s the majority. Obviously here
    people know better.

    Skis are a little easier as the ski crowd in general are tech heads.
    That said, people still fear a ski that is 149 under foot, and skinnier at the tips.

    If you want a custom shape, let’s do it.

    And sounding harsh is fine, just don’t apologize in the same post.
    It shows weakness :twocents:

    6 Posts

    And yes, I’m a snowboarder. 23 years

    6 Posts

    But seriously…………..Im with ya. Why ride a park shape in the steep and deep backcountry. Ill design a new shape, and have somthing up here in the next couple days.
    lets pick it apart, and see what people can help me come up with as far as ideas.

    1382 Posts

    I did see that pow board and it looks sweet 🙂

    It’s pretty easy. We just need a Furburg to have sex with a Jones flagship and there’s your perfect big mountain, do it all board. Carbon and < 6lb's of course 😉

    Basically something with around 10-13m sidecut, straight to reverse camber past the contact points (as all your skis look like they have), 8-12mm taper (depending on what sidecut you use, rockered nose (maybe slightly on tail too), and mild camber to flat under foot with stiff nose. Width determined by how little sidecut there is. As narrow as possible but well over 25cm obviously. And magne traction!

    And I think you’d actually sell a LOT more boards if you had something very progressive and outside the box.

    I ride a Jones flagship/solution because it’s as close to the perfect board as there is right now.

    Steve Klassen and Tom Burt have designed boards similar to the Flagship. We just need a little more furberg in them in the weay of a tad more sidecut (not as much as furbergs) and reverse sidecut tip and tails

    1490 Posts

    I am in almost total agreement with Brooks (imagine that 😉 ) ‘Cept I’d go with 14-16 m radius on 125 CMs of edge length 167 overall and a 27 waist (’cause with the long radius sidecut the waist needs to be wider to have enough width at the feet). Would love to see more innovation from snowboard companies on shapes for the backcountry, besides furberg. I also like low rise rocker tips and tails, the Jones Solution has a really nice low rise nose on it…
    Beautiful looking work though, will like your FB now…

    623 Posts

    nice work dtrain, I’ve been a fan of your projects for years on skibuilders, love the new workshop you built! I’m still pretty amazed how long it has taken established mfgs to begin to move away from E-glass as the basic laminate. For what? a difference of $40 in materials. Sooo conservative.

    For riders with imagination, My :twocents: is that there isn’t much sense in waiting for innovation for bc shapes from more established companies that are dependent on steady sales each year. I think there is a great opportunity these days for anyone with an idea for a board to get a new mold made and their board put together from the folks out there that have the capability to do anything and don’t 100% depend financially on having to sell a stack of boards that are based on resort designs and millimeters different from last years. Really paying any of these small independent builders to make a new mold and a new board on it may seem expensive, but it will cost so little money and time compared to what it takes to get your own press and techniques together.

    Point is any rider can step up just a little and make the shape they want happen these days. Design it, order it, ride it amigos.

    125 Posts

    I absolutely love the look of those wood skis and boards. I checked out the facebook page….what are your prices? More info on the splits?

    797 Posts

    @dtrain wrote:

    But seriously………….. Ill design a new shape, and have somthing up here in the next couple days.
    lets pick it apart, and see what people can help me come up with as far as ideas.

    +1 right on.

    And yah, if your aim is to build and sell boards, there is certainly at least a niche market for and room for competition in more progressive splitboard shapes. A widened version of one of your skis, as brooks suggests, would be a great start for this project. I for one would love to have a shape like that in my quiver. I suggest spending some time reading the Furberg and other threads on this forum. There’s actually quite a bit of good thinking on where riders would like to see board design go.


    220 Posts

    I made a reverse sidecut nose board last season to see what all the hype was about, Im still not sure.
    Theres no difference in a “reverse sidecut” and a long gentle curved nose. Too much over thinking IMO.

    1382 Posts

    Theres a reason every modern ski is designed that way.

    220 Posts

    The way the boot sits in the middle of a ski lends itself to that design though. On a snowboard you have to force it by reducing the effective edge back to around the bindings only, a pretty major change to achieve, well Im just not sure what it achieves. I would love someone to lay it down on the table for me and tell me exactly why a radius (which is just a curve) is better than any old long nose with a gentle inward curve like a birdman.
    I seriously cant tell the difference.

    96 Posts

    BG, do you have a Furburg or have you ridden one?

    623 Posts

    I agree with you Bob Gnarly. a long nose that tapers off from the sidecut is just the result of having a set back stance and having the effective edge continue to the same length on either side of the stance. Early Sims boards, early Winterstick ‘s were like this nothing new. any board that has a set back stance that centers the sidecut from that set back stance will have this section of nose that is not on the sidecut or looks like a taper or section of reverse sidecut up there.

    I’m probably repeating myself here, but I think that looking at the taper tips and tails of skis and thinking boards need that which people are liking in skis is wrong in two regards. Skis are long, but more importantly you have to control the tip of that ski by rotating you foot and lower leg. This is not an ergonomically very strong thing to do and explains why you need a stiff boot to help transmit that control to the tip of a ski when it hits things. This explains why 1. the tips of skis are quite soft compared to the mid body and middle of a ski-so the skis give and absorb energy form the tips hitting firm surfaces instead of getting knocked around too much. Because the tips of skis are pretty soft, when they dig in to a higher piece of cut up snow or firmer surface the tip tends to grab, deflect and make the skier strain to keep the tips going where the skier wants. The skis are said to deflect or not be stable, etc. So if you taper the grabby sidecut away from the tip of the ski, the ski tracks more confidently through irregular piles of cut-up snow or bumpy surfaces because the soft tip doesn’t grab and deflect. In the tails, the tails will feel less hooky and catchy. Skis and boards have a lot of basic similarities, but the way they are controlled by your body are vastly different and they should reflect that differenece. Also resort snow conditions (used snow) make vastly greater and different demands of a ski or board.

    Whether you drop 20cms to the average snowboard size or ride a 180 something, there is so much more control over the nose and tails of a snowboard by virtue of having you feet at roughly the 1/3 points of the board instead of one foot aligned straight on, this shouldn’t be a problem. On a snowboard yo have really large muscle groups on each leg controlling or stopping unwanted rotation of your single board. However, a board can be made to feel more controllable by tapering off the tip and tail sidecut so the board doesn’t deflect at the ends when it hits inconsistencies in the snow. I propose that this is the result for two reasons: 1) the tip and tail flex of conventional snowboards originated from copying the flex patterns of skis designed for hardpack resort snow environments -they are just too soft and 2) the sidecut radius is way too small being the perfected radius for a responsive board at 10 to 15 mph on resort snow surfaces, carving on narrow trails around other people.

    The industry seems to be gradually figuring this out mm by mm. Years ago the Sims Daytona had a real firm flex right up to the nose, Mark Fawcett’s current boards are probably similar, I hear the Rossignol XV board has headed this way also. Also Volkl skis claims to stiffen the noses of their full-rockered skis to keep them from bouncing all over the place but still start turns easily.

    623 Posts

    If you look at the pictures above at the modern ski outline of the skis and the board, you can see the sort of dubi shape (to steal from igneous) tapered tip and tail outline of the ski is to help you with the task of keeping those two long skinny sticks going in the same direction and allowing one to be able to pivot them easier by having less surface area at the ends. Then look at the board and where two feet are located, so much more control over the ends that rotational control and power to rotate the board is not an issue, even at 190cm, more so at popular lengths.

    -this discussion powered by fall leaves under my feet :thumpsup:_

    220 Posts

    @Darrick wrote:

    BG, do you have a Furburg or have you ridden one?

    No. I read what you guys say about them though and no offense but some of the things I read make me chuckle. Things like the rocker being “perfectly matched” to the scr for insrance. Rocker is constantly variable so that goes out the window the second you weight or flex the board.
    I built a board with tapered tip and tail for firstlight earlier this year, I put camber between the feet and got howled down for it on here, told it was wrong etc but the thing worked. Now months later I see furberg us changing to camber… You guys said it was wrong???

    Im not trying to be a dick here, Im genuinely asking for an explaination of why a “reverse sidecut” is so important cause to me its just a curve and as long as it isnt too sharp, it works. Some on here are blinded by a mysterious light in regards to this, thats all Im saying. Im not hating, merely questioning.

    312 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    I am in almost total agreement with Brooks (imagine that 😉 ) ‘Cept I’d go with 14-16 m radius on 125 CMs of edge length 167 overall and a 27 waist (’cause with the long radius sidecut the waist needs to be wider to have enough width at the feet). …….
    Beautiful looking work though, will like your FB now…

    and I would tweak it a bit too.
    Like the clean wood look


Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 78 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.