Forums Splitboards Firstlight Splits
Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 74 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #665674
    permnation
    303 Posts

    Following the creation of your boards has made for an enjoyable thread. The Float a lot/furberg shape looked great, but your last post has me scratching my head a little.

    @firstlight wrote:

    Great in the deep POW but no good on the harder stuff
    We went back down to about 9M

    Early on you stated “These are experimental boards for powder only!”

    Are you scrapping all future long radius designs?

    #665675
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    If you want to make a board harder to ride make it wide and give it a long radius.
    As discovered by me.

    #665676
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @BobGnarly wrote:

    If you want to make a board harder to ride make it wide and give it a long radius.
    As discovered by me.

    Not sure what long radius board you rode Bob? I have 4 partners who have all switched to riding furbergs including two guides, and all are remarking at how easy the board is to ride, with 20 m on the 173s and 18 m on the 167s respectively.
    I have a 173 DIY split and it is the easiest riding board I have been on in years.

    #665677
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    I just made 5 boards with radii ranging from 12m to 18m and took them to japan for testing. I have a pretty good handle on the effects of sidecut radius now I feel and long radii sucks. I thought it would be awesome but it wasnt so its back to narrow waist and short radii for me.

    Others my disagree, thats fine but if Im building a board for a mate to take to japan I will make it the best I can and with all the experience I have mustered. Hence changing adams shape to a shorter radius with a narrower waist. When it rides great he will be happy unlike me with my quiver of wide long radii boards that will never be ridden again lol.

    #665678
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    Looks like a floaty, fun, and well-made deck for sure.

    But I was wondering if the long scr was dropped; it looked curvy. Adam, did you try to fit a rocker profile to the early taper and long scr such that the board would not rely primarily on sidecut for its turning geometry?

    I remain in the hunt for a snowboard version of these (in the mid 180s):

    A la Furberg, there remains vast room for design evolution that reconciles early taper, long scr shapes with rocker profiles to yield pow float, quick maneuverability, and speed- and steep-stability.

    @sun_rocket

    #665679
    permnation
    303 Posts

    Something got lost in translation. If I was going to Japan, to JaPow, if you will, I would be baking an 18m board, :bananas: hammock, and a split version of the first.

    #665680
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Taylor
    Time, the ability to test designs and the lack of real snow are our issues in Australia.
    I’d love to live on snow and make boards but the reality is that doesn’t put food on the family table!
    Any board can be made, the reality is that most peoples personal preferences and what is available on the market don’t often align.

    I built this board with a lot of help and feedback from BobGnarly, who spends months in Japan riding his own creations, I’m limited with time outside Australia so I went with his recommendation. If time permitted it would have been nice to make both boards and test them side by side.
    getting molds and templates to line up for one board is a time consuming task, as well as $$$$$ so you have to make some compromises here and there

    I’d happily come over to the US and play in a large board manufactures workshop and make prototypes for weeks but its never going to happen.

    There is no real option other than to make your own.
    I’ll ride my first prototype and who know it may well suck too!

    Proof will be in the testing.

    Thanks for the feedback and ill post more on the board ASAP

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #665681
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    permnation
    I’ve a Split Hammock and a Venture Euphoria split but the other issue is weight restrictions on the plane!
    Hard to get all the gear in a 20kg limit! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #665682
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    Yeah, Adam, I know all that. I appreciate you posting your shaping process here. It’s cool. (Of course, my motives for pushing design concepts on these forums are broad in reach.)

    Have a great time in Japan!

    @sun_rocket

    #665683
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    @permnation wrote:

    Something got lost in translation. If I was going to Japan, to JaPow, if you will, I would be baking an 18m board, :bananas: hammock, and a split version of the first.

    Thats was my thinking too, but when you build 5 decks, get to japan and start riding them only to find you just took a step backwards in board design its not a great feeling. Its a blow to your ego for sure.

    The first lot of boards I made were incredible with 256mm waist and 8.7m sidecut.
    The second lot sucked with wider waists and longer radii. The effects of these changes are blindingly obvious to me and have steered me in this direction. You never know how far you should push something till you go to far, and thats what happened.

    #665684
    ausplit
    53 Posts

    Nice work guys,well done.
    :thumpsup:

    #665685
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @BobGnarly wrote:

    @permnation wrote:

    Something got lost in translation. If I was going to Japan, to JaPow, if you will, I would be baking an 18m board, :bananas: hammock, and a split version of the first.

    Thats was my thinking too, but when you build 5 decks, get to japan and start riding them only to find you just took a step backwards in board design its not a great feeling. Its a blow to your ego for sure.

    The first lot of boards I made were incredible with 256mm waist and 8.7m sidecut.
    The second lot sucked with wider waists and longer radii. The effects of these changes are blindingly obvious to me and have steered me in this direction. You never know how far you should push something till you go to far, and thats what happened.

    Bob: when you note wide waists along with the straighter sidecut, I am interested in how wide you went. My experience has shown that of course you need a wider waist when you go from 9 m to 20 m, but of course neither do you want to go too wide as then you lose your quickness. With my size 28/10.5 boots, the furberg 173 with a 20 m radius and 27 cm waist is perfect, and the board width at the boot positions is the same as my Venture Storm 166×26 (very similar taper to both boards). I find the furberg to be one of the most easy to ride boards I have ever been on. On the other hand, I test rode a Chimera Dum Dum, with a 18 m radius, and a wider 27.5 cm waist, and it just was not maneuverable enough, despite being only a 160! Also, the furberg has a subtle rocker between the feet. I have talked to some designers who get all weird about the tip and tail ending up a little narrower than on a traditional 8-9 m radius board, so they want to widen a long radius board even more, but the boards I have ridden which work really well are those which keep the width the same at the bindings, allow the waist to be a bit wider, and the tip and tail to be a little narrower, with the “average” width being about the same, the edge to edge response and boot leverage over the board remains the same. The performance is due to the balance between all the design elements (duh, and of course you realize this), but my bottom line point is that long radius does not have to be hard to ride at all.

    Taylor, right with ya on the DPS stuff, I know skiers who love theirs. furberg is it, but of course you need a bigger one…

    #665686
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    Barrows, do you think the Dum Dum’s lack of maneuverability attributes to its width, or a lack of rocker sufficient to supplement the long scr, or some combination thereof? (Edit: Or something else, like taper, or lack thereof…)

    Carefully matching the rocker profile to the long taper and long scr in shapes such as these is really, really critical for all pieces to work together nicely.

    @sun_rocket

    #665687
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @Taylor wrote:

    Barrows, do you think the Dum Dum’s lack of maneuverability attributes to its width, or a lack of rocker sufficient to supplement the long scr, or some combination thereof? (Edit: Or something else, like taper, or lack thereof…)

    Carefully matching the rocker profile to the long taper and long scr in shapes such as these is really, really critical for all pieces to work together nicely.

    Taylor. Probably a combination. I found the Dum Dum to be a fun ride, but not as easy to maneuver in trees. Interesting considering the Dum Dum was a 160 and furberg is a 173. Both boards have very similar taper, and the flex patterns were not different enough to explain the difference. I suspect the extra width of the Dum Dum, was the main cause, and the lack of rocker was also a contributing factor. The DD proto I rode had slight early rise tip and tails, and slight camber between the feet. Chimera calls it flat between the feet, but they build it with slight camber, as they feel it goes flat with break in. The DD was noticeably wide at the feet…

    #665688
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    I could seperate the width and the sidecut in my mind. I found the width just makes for hard work but the long radius sidecuts were just not as nice to ride. You guys might love it but I dont and quite frankly Ive seen enough to not really want to explore it anymore.
    If I had to explain long radii sidecuts in a few words I would say “falling over waiting for my heel side turns to happen”

    #665689
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Specs
    170cm

    Camber 6mm

    Side cut depth 15mm
    Nose 320mm
    Waist 270mm
    Tail 290mm

    Nose length 420mm
    Tail length 215mm

    Stance -100mm

    effective edge 1090mm

    Weight 3.9kg / 8.58lbs (includes nose tail clips and hooks)

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #665690
    karkis
    270 Posts

    cool thread, makes me wish i had a garage!!! nice work!
    Bob were your profiles same same, camber bw the feet? i know a lot of folks dig their boards with that profile but as a concept i just don’t get it, unless your stance is super narrow, or if its a stiff racing board with camber tip to tail….
    for the most part it seems to me that profile just makes your feet work against each other :scratch:

    never summer snowboards
    phantom splitboard bindings
    dynafit touring
    atomic boots

    #665691
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Karkis
    Camber just pass binding mounts then rocker for nose and tail

    Barrows / Taylor

    Can you measure the side cut depth of the Furberg?
    I would be interested to see what it is.

    I think it looks more curvy due to the 30mm of taper?

    Cheers

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #665692
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @karkis wrote:

    cool thread, makes me wish i had a garage!!! nice work!
    Bob were your profiles same same, camber bw the feet? i know a lot of folks dig their boards with that profile but as a concept i just don’t get it, unless your stance is super narrow, or if its a stiff racing board with camber tip to tail….
    for the most part it seems to me that profile just makes your feet work against each other :scratch:

    Yeah Mark, with one’s feet so far apart camber between the feet makes zero sense to me as well, I think people are just a little afraid of change! Hey, congrats on the little one as well.

    I’ll get that measurement later, heading out to brave the winds and avy danger in search of short safe pow lines now…

    #665693
    BobGnarly
    220 Posts

    Not afraid of change, just trying everything to find the happy place. My boards have always been rocker between the feet and camber outside. Adams boards is the first one to use camber all the way.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 74 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.