@BobGnarly wrote:

@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.

Bob, no need to get all defensive, we are just talking. Certainly there is no one aspect of design which rules over all others. Many of us have probably ridden some of the early rocker boards, where manufacturers just made a current board design rockered, without adjusting other parameters to suit, they mostly sucked. Every parameter must be balanced in terms of rocker/camber profiles, flex, sidecut, shape, etc… Just pointing to any one aspect of design as being of preeminent importance is clearly overly simplistic, as you well know.
Now, to my opinion on what furberg would call “reverse sidecut” at the tip and tail. I am a big believer, having now ridden both furberg and some other boards which also feature a similar approach, but of course, you are “right” as well. The reverse sidecut is a way to reduce the edge pressure right at the entry and exit points of the sidecut. Reducing this pressure brings more pressure under foot, making the board easier to control, and less grabby at the tip and tail. Jones uses a bit different approach to do the same thing, at least in terminology: they actually use a longer sidecut radius at the tip and tail of the board: do some math, or just make a coupe, of sketches, and one can quickly see that this accomplishes the same thing as “reverse sidecut”.
Same thing with a long radius: it reduces edge pressure at the tip and tail, and brings more pressure under foot, making the board easier to control, and more stable at speed, and, especially in variable snow conditions. Long R, and gentle transition points of sidecut (or reverse sidecut if you will, terminology) work together to achieve the same end: less abrupt turn entry, easier turn exit, easier ability to change the type of turn (both radius and degree of carve vs skid) during the turn, more stability especially in demanding conditions. Of course how much of these design details one applies makes all the difference as well. If one goes too far with them, the board can become less responsive than desired (taper and rocker can help offset this), or one can lose too much grip. IMO, the first generation furbergs went a little too far, for my riding the furberg was just a little too loose riding at times, just occasionally, but I realized they could probably dial it back a little. this is exactly what they have done with this years boards, reducing the length of the “reverse” sections, hence increasing effective edge, and adding a little camber, they will probably be improved for these changes, at least for my riding style and conditions.

Yeah Scooby, as usual, very much agree with most of what you are saying. Especially re: flex at the front foot, and board forebody. Actually, quite a few boards these days have firm flex around the front foot and in the forebody of the board, it is obvious enough to see in the core profile at times. And of course, as you mention, most of this is nothing new! Taper, rocker, long gentle nose entry, and even long sidecut radii were common on many very early snowboard designs, these boards were only ridden in the backcountry. When the snowboard industry was trying so hard to get ski areas to allow snowboarding, the design direction shifted to making boards which can tip and carve, even at slow speeds, and on hardback snow… Only recently are people (finally) getting away from these hardback oriented designs for splits in the backcountry. Oh yeah I also agree with what you are saying about lengths, body mechanics and tapered tips and tails vs skis. But IMO, snowboards for demanding conditions still benefit from this approach, but they do not need as long a section of the taper as skis, accounting for the shorter overall length, and the better biomechanical leverage of the snowboard stance.

Bob, yeah, the Birdman has a really cool nose shape on it, same with Jones Solution, I just wish those boards had a 14-18 m sidecut radius paired with that great nose…

Yep question for BGnight. Sorry Bob.

Holy shit that’s barrow’s dream version of the birdman. Me want! It’s basically the same board with a much longer sidecut.

And they offer a split! I’m probably ordering one of these very soon. I wanted a birdman split real bad but this looks better. Thanks for sharing! :headbang:

@dtrain wrote:

Here she is. A maiden design. Rocker profile to be determined.

166cm
270mm waist.
At work right now , can’t remember the tip/tail widths! Doh

Thoughts?

Looks nice. I’d like it to be a bit more blunt in the tip and tail, otherwise I dig it.

First off, dtrain, nice looking boards, looks like quality and I’m digging the maple leaf topsheets! Also cool that you are willing to experiment and get some feedback from other riders.
And now, for the great shape debate that this thread has turned into (which is worthy of its own thread). I’m not quite getting some of the arguments made here for certain shapes. For those of you lobbying for reverse sidecut at the tip and tails, so that the board doesn’t hang up, it sounds like you just need to detune your edges. Once beyond the contact point, the shape of the nose means almost nothing, as the only function it has is to help plane the board in deep pow at slow speeds, especially on a directional board with a set back stance – once you’re moving, the nose is entirely out of the snow, and it doesn’t make any contact in firm snow. We’ve had the radius debate before, too, and I still think that it is easier to get a board with a smaller radius to make big turns than vice versa. Although I will agree that the radius put on most boards is on the small side, I’d like to see it closer to 10m. And as far as rocker, I don’t know why anyone would ever ride a board without it, especially rocker/camber like NS and Lib Tech use. To me, that was the greatest thing that ever happened to snowboards (well, beside the splitboard). Maybe it’s because of how I ride, or the fact that almost every board that I have owned since I started riding has been a directional twin or something close, the main exceptions being my first two splits which I felt pretty limited on. With a fairly standard directional twin, with rocker/camber, and a slightly set back stance (NS Legacy) I have never once been in a situation where I felt limited by my board, riding in either direction. One board for anything from steep chutes, to billygoating over exposure, to big ass laid out pow turns, to airing it out over big booters or cliff drops. I just don’t see the need for these specialized boards that some of you are pining for. Yeah, I’m sure they could work well, though not necessarily any better, in certain conditions, so why not just have one board for everything instead of spending money on multiple boards for different conditions, especially when you are like to encounter different conditions in a single day of riding?

@fustercluck wrote:

Once beyond the contact point, the shape of the nose means almost nothing…… and it doesn’t make any contact in firm snow…….so why not just have one board for everything

This is entirely untrue. And there’s a reason every new freeride ski has a long gradual reverse sidecut on their tips. It planes through the snow smoother so you have more control. The width and the rocker gives it float so the nose doesn’t need to be so wide. Same with all classic swallowtail noses.
And the whole point of this is to have one board for everything. My flagship is the best all around board I’ve had. I just want it refined a little more so IT IS a do all board.

You’re just used to riding the same boards all the time.

But everyone should have a pow specific quiver board to complement their every day board. That’s goes without saying. The one day I rode my birdman last year on a really deep day my buddies on the same size or bigger boards, WITH ROCKER, couldn’t even hang. They were struggling moving while I was crushing. So it’s not the rider, IT’S THE BOARD (unless you’re jimw who crushes 55 degree ice on his Spliff)

Nice! One thing I’m sure you understand is that it doesn’t handle like a resort board on hardback, I’ve been told it’s rideable in non pow but I’m hoping it’s not your all around board.

No worries….I have my Venture Euphoria for spring days. LOL.

Just kidding, I have a few splitboards in the quiver—but I will probably be putting the Euphoria in the classifieds later tonight.

To be more clear, I guess I am talking about a nomenclature thing: to me, the word “hardpack” refers to a resort only snow condition produced by a constant grooming down and ski packing of the snow, producing a bullet proof, very smooth, hardpacked surface.
Sure, in the backcountry I have ridden many different types of hard snow surfaces, frozen corn, steep ice, etc, just not the same smooth hard packed surface as one finds in a resort.
And I agree, the G-Pow is a board which is geared for powder and soft/variable conditions riding performance and not a quiver of one type of board. With its short edge length, and long tip and tail areas the G-Pow will not be ideal for steep ice, or spring time corn riding which sometimes means frozen surfaces. Clearly Oz designed the G-Pow for powder and winter variable conditions, they have other shapes which are more traditional. The G-Pow has enough sidecut and edge to handle packed out exits and such (unlike pure powder reverse/reverse boards like the Fawcett boards and Venture’s Euphoria).
OTOH, the 2015 furbergs should handle very well in these hard surface backcountry types of conditions, as they have now feature longer running lengths, and a touch of camber. The long sidecut radii is a natural for producing better edge hold on hard surfaces as well.