Forums Splitboards furberg 173 DIY Review
Viewing 16 posts - 21 through 36 (of 36 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #667044
    buell
    534 Posts

    From all my experience carving groomers on a snowboard (hard and soft boot), the 16 to 20m sidecuts of the different Furberg lengths are just way too big to carve groomers on softboots. With that big of a sidecut, you would need real snowboard hardboots and a board that is torsionally and longitudinally stiff enough to handle the forces generated.

    The Furberg can carve big, open, down the fall line carves at moderate to high speed, but you cannot do speed control C carves across the groomer or low speed carves. I don’t think rocker / sidecut modifications will fix this.

    As we all seem to agree, it is awesome off trail but not a groomer board. At least if you like to carve on groom.

    permnation, I just read that there are plans for a 162 split next year? I have not confirmed that though.

    #667042
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    I added the carbon fiber inner sidewall for two reasons: first, I liked the flex of the 173 before I cut it, and I knew that cutting it would make it softer. After I cut it, I did not flex the two halves, for fear of breaking down the laminate, until after I added the carbon fiber and finished the sidewall. I am happy with the result, but it was a lot of work-I think the board might be too soft without the added carbon.
    Properly layed up carbon is also very, very tough, and slippery. As such this was a great way to protect the core of the board from damage.
    The first year furbergs (11/12) have a very lightweight and soft core-I think this factor makes them a little fragile for DIY splits, and I try to treat mine gently for this reason. Daniel Furberg specifically mentioned to me that he specified denser wood for the cores on the 12/13 boards, so they are a little heavier, but I suspect, much more durable.

    #667040
    whistlermaverick
    312 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    The first year furbergs (11/12) have a very lightweight and soft core-I think this factor makes them a little fragile for DIY splits, and I try to treat mine gently for this reason. Daniel Furberg specifically mentioned to me that he specified denser wood for the cores on the 12/13 boards, so they are a little heavier, but I suspect, much more durable.

    When I drilled in to my 12/13 split to put in inserts the first thing I thought(and the guy I was with who runs his tuning shop) was how the core seemed less dense/lighter than other boards. I don’t know if he did end up getting the cores or build quality that he wanted from the guys in China.

    @j.memay

    #667041
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Jamie: I specifically mentioned this to Daniel Furberg, and he assured me that the core wood spec was totally changed for the 12/13 boards. He did not reveal from what type wood to what type wood, but I suspect the 11/12 boards were probably Paulownia without any reinforcement, super light for sure, but somewhat sketchy as far as I am concerned. He also had to change the core profiles quite a bit to accommodate the additional stiffness of the denser cores. He also upgraded the base material from what I have seen. The 12/13 boards appear to come with a black, carbon loaded base, which Daniel says is 4000 series sintered. Not sure what the 11/12 boards are, but it is definitely not a black carbon base, and seems a little soft to me.
    My dream is that furberg will have enough success to support them building their own boards, in Norway, and applying typical (meaning totally perfectionist anal retentive) Scandinavian values to the construction of their boards! One can get good build quality from the Asians, but one has to have very diligent production management to be sure to actually get what one specifies.

    #667063

    Hi,
    i write from Italy and I’m really stoked by the design of this boards!
    I’m interested to buy a splitboard.
    this year is very special here in Dolomites(lot of pow!), but normally conditions may vary from powder to icy, to spring snow etc..
    what i want to know is the behaviour of the splitboard in icy condition both in touring mode that ride mode.
    it’s right to think that a longer radius improve performance in touring mode, especially in traverse? i’m a bit scared about the full roker design in combination with the larger width under the boots…
    For me it’s important to know that, because conditions are not always good, and I don’t want to buy a splitboard that perform well only in powder condition.
    I went from a Prior Backcountry split 164 (non rocker) with soft boots, so , how Furberg is compared to?
    can you tell me how is the flex?
    which lenght do you suggest? longer or shorter than a normal board?
    I’m 188 cm x 78/80 kg.
    Thank you all, and sorry if my English is too bad!

    #667064
    powslash
    382 Posts

    @alexander supertramp wrote:

    Hi,
    i write from Italy and I’m really stoked by the design of this boards!
    I’m interested to buy a splitboard.
    this year is very special here in Dolomites(lot of pow!), but normally conditions may vary from powder to icy, to spring snow etc..
    what i want to know is the behaviour of the splitboard in icy condition both in touring mode that ride mode.
    it’s right to think that a longer radius improve performance in touring mode, especially in traverse? i’m a bit scared about the full roker design in combination with the larger width under the boots…
    For me it’s important to know that, because conditions are not always good, and I don’t want to buy a splitboard that perform well only in powder condition.
    I went from a Prior Backcountry split 164 (non rocker) with soft boots, so , how Furberg is compared to?
    can you tell me how is the flex?
    which lenght do you suggest? longer or shorter than a normal board?
    I’m 188 cm x 78/80 kg.
    Thank you all, and sorry if my English is too bad!

    Your English is great. The Furberg is not an all-conditions board. The performance on icy/hard snow is poor. It sounds like you want a more versatile board to ride every snow type. The middle rocker is the only reason this sidecut works. So you really have to consider the performance qualities of the rocker profile and ignore the sidecut. Middle rocker profiles are best suited to soft snow. On hard snow they tend to wander on traverses. You would think the long radius would help while traversing but I found the rocker profile wouldn’t track strait. The rocker makes the sidecut pointless on hard snow.

    For versatility in all conditions you might look at boards with a camber/rocker nose profile(Prior) or a flat/rocker tip and tail profile(Venture). Those two profiles perform better in all conditions. The Furberg is on the soft snow end of the quiver spectrum.

    #667065
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    In RIDE mode I find the Furberg good at holding the edge on icy steeps. In TOUR mode I struggle a bit when it comes to traversing on hard/icy snow…

    #667066
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Interesting. I tend to disagree with the last two posters.
    1. Riding, no problems here with the furberg on hard snow. No, it does not carve at low speeds the same way a deep sidecut board does, but it traverses on ice better than any other board, and holds on icy steeps very well.
    2. In tour mode, I have no problem on icy traverses, in fact, I find it holds on touring traverses better than traditional deep sidecut boards, as one woudl expect with the longer radius sidecut.

    #667067
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    Well we agree on the ride mode 😀 Very happy with it. The tour mode could just be my lack of experience with a splitboard. Need to work on my skills, tighten boots more etc.. I often find it easier to just put on my mr.chomps and just go straight up 😀

    #667068

    @powslash wrote:

    The Furberg is not an all-conditions board. The performance on icy/hard snow is poor.

    @Bjørgvin wrote:

    In RIDE mode I find the Furberg good at holding the edge on icy steeps. In TOUR mode I struggle a bit when it comes to traversing on hard/icy snow…

    @barrows wrote:

    Interesting. I tend to disagree with the last two posters.
    1. Riding, no problems here with the furberg on hard snow. No, it does not carve at low speeds the same way a deep sidecut board does, but it traverses on ice better than any other board, and holds on icy steeps very well.
    2. In tour mode, I have no problem on icy traverses, in fact, I find it holds on touring traverses better than traditional deep sidecut boards, as one woudl expect with the longer radius sidecut.

    so, three different point of view! :scratch:
    sounds like it depends from riding style… or not?

    barrows, do you mean that furberg need an aggressive and fast riding style when you say that it does not carve as a deep sidecut?
    i saw that you’re using Dynafit TLT5 boots… is that the reason why you don’t find difficult on icy/steep traverse?
    have you compared with other boards that way?

    i’m still not understanding if this board is a Powder specific or a versatile freeride… :scratch:
    but i really love its shape!

    #667069
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    My review and comments are based on the fact that this forum is splitboard.com. And all my findings are based on riding the furberg in the backcountry.
    If you are looking for a board for riding primarily on groomed runs, then you want something else-but the furberg will easily handle groomed runs on the way to something better.
    The furberg performs great in all kinds of off piste snow conditions. It is not a specialized powder board. In the backcountry one generally is dealing with snow which has some penetrable depth to it: powder, windpack, breakable crusts, corn, etc. The furberg is superb in all these snow conditions.
    My comments on the touring performance are in comparison to other splitboards: I do not expect any splitboard to tour as well as an 90 mm or less waisted ski. In comparison to other splitboards the furberg tours at least as well, and often better due to the straighter sidecut. I was concerned that the underfoot rocker would give less grip in the skin track, but I have not found this to be the case.
    I have owned and ridden extensively the following splitboards:
    Prior Backcountry 168 (camber)
    Prior Spearhead 178
    Venture Storm 166
    furberg 173 DIY
    Chimera Mace 172W custom (rocker-flat-rocker)

    Sure, hardboots always help touring, but I always use hardboots, soft boots are kind of silly in the backcountry (hahaha).

    Bottom line: I do not view the furberg as a specialized powder board, I feel it is very versatile for all of the snow conditions one is likely to find in the backcountry. Certainly, it rips pow, but it is especially good in variable conditions, where its forgiving nature can keep one out of trouble (breakable crusts, changing snow conditions in one run, chowder, busted up chunky shit, avy debris, etc).

    If one primarily rides on ice, then maybe a different board could be better (what, I do not know), or maybe moving is a better idea. I ride ice occasionally, but I never go out planning on riding ice. I am confident if I have to navigate through an icy section (say a couloir entrance at the top, where they are sometimes icy) I can do it on the furberg.

    I hope that answers your questions.

    #667070
    Bjorgvin
    74 Posts

    I agree 100% with barrows about how this board rides. As I said, my touring experience is very limited and my skills needs some work.
    If this board is not an everyday backcountry tool, then what is? I rode a 173 solid the first year they were out. That was resort powder riding. By far the best board I had ridden, but I still felt there was room for improvement. (Biggest board I have)
    This year I got the 167 split. And this thing just feels so right!! Enough float in powder, and just so calm in variable conditions.
    In the backcountry you dont really make a sidecut radius turn. For me its either a powder turn, or I “slarve” the board around for controlling speed in the tight spots. The Furberg does this very well!

    Ps.
    Sorry for this hijacking 😀

    #667071

    Thank you for the review!

    This is what I was looking for!

    Of course, I do not go to ride on ice. I was only considering borderline case, and probably I did not make myself clear. To be more clear, it’s easy to find situation of wind packed or hard packed snow(rarely also ice) or crust that don’t broke , when you are touring all the winter .sometimes I am going to take a good line but the travel to go there could be in various terrain. always looking for good snow condition, but not every day in a good day!

    Now my concerns have decreased, and I am thinking more and more that this is the right board for me!

    So, which size do you suggest me? I’m 188 cm(74 inch?) x 78/80 kg (176 lbs?) .

    My longer board is a Prior bc 164(camber) and I have also a solid K2 turbodream 161( a bit instable at high speed but very manoeuvrable).

    Furberg has a longer effective edge compared to other boards, so , do I have to choose longer or shorter size than a normal split? Not interested at the 173, but undecided between 162 and 167, ‘cause I need a versatile splitboard.

    #667072
    Cadderly
    42 Posts

    Supertramp:

    I’d definitely go with the 167. I think the 162 would be too short for you.

    #667073

    @cadderly wrote:

    Supertramp:

    I’d definitely go with the 167. I think the 162 would be too short for you.

    thank you Cadderly, and thank you all for the support!

    i’ll post my review as soon as i’ll get it!

    bottom line: sorry for the off topic.

    #667074

    Interesting to read through all the comments!

    We are developing boards that we want to ride. We love to freeride in all types of conditions, but try to stay away from the groomers. So our goal is to make boards that are good for freeriding in all types of conditions, which we think we have succeded with. But we are working hard to constantly improve the boards.

    Jamie May: The core is made of two different types of wood. One is light and quite soft and the other is harder and a bit heavier. The harder one is where the inserts are placed and along the edges. On the 11/12 boards we did not use enough of the harder wood, so a few boards snapped in front of the front binding. On the 12/13 there is more hard wood and this year we haven’t had a single warranty request. But to only use hardwood in the core would increase the weight a lot without giving any advantages, except maybe for those who want to make DIY splits… 🙂

    If you have questions about the boards, please feel free to write on our facebook page:
    http://www.facebook.com/furbergsnowboards

    Regards
    //Daniel Furberg

Viewing 16 posts - 21 through 36 (of 36 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.