Forums Splitboards Nitro Snowboards have a splitboard Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 34 total) 1 2 →Author Posts September 27, 2013 at 11:34 pm #578925 ruapehu_explorer 78 PostsHadn’t heard of it before and I was a bit surprised to see it on their site. Looks like a design a lot of people here might like; about 1cm of taper, 2.5cm setback, camber, and a long radius sidecut compared to what the big name companies usually put out (157cm = 10m, 162cm =12m, 166 = 13m)http://nitrousa.com/board/thunder-splitboard September 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm #669995 PeRi 110 PostsYes, we had the chance to see it during the ISPO trade show! It looked quite good, nice pointy nose, setback, and full camber!glad to see more equipment options! :bananas:www.splitboardmag.com September 29, 2013 at 8:45 pm #669996 dishwasher-dave 460 PostsGood looking board. I had fun on a couple Nitro’s back in the day.The specs look good although I do wish folks listed nose and tail heights. September 30, 2013 at 7:13 am #669997 svelle 10 Posts166 and 162 nose height 61,19mm tail height 31,71mm 157 nose height 59,35mm tail height 29,87mmcheck the dimensions of the boards and compare them to the splitsticks dimensions…… September 30, 2013 at 7:26 pm #669998 BGnight 1382 PostsI love the taper and radius on this board….but why no nose rocker??? Kind of a bummer. I don’t see why anyone would want a split without some sort of rockered feature in the nose at least. Good to see a more progressive sidecut radius. I can’t tell you how many boards are out there that are beautifully designed and constructed only to be ruined by a gay ass 7.5-8 meter radius. I’d pass on this though (unless you’re accessing backcountry groomers lol). You can see in the video of the guy riding it how the standard nose sucks in powder. September 30, 2013 at 8:35 pm #669999 Jefe009 675 Posts…given Nitro’s history in splitboarding, I’m very surprised that this new board is what they came up with.viewtopic.php?f=9&p=84395http://www.snowboardmuseum.de/board/show/id/255www.splitlife.net October 1, 2013 at 7:59 am #670000 Taylor 794 Posts @Jefe009 wrote:…given Nitro’s history in splitboarding, I’m very surprised that this new board is what they came up with.Why? Do you think the design is too conservative or too far out there?Nitro’s always shown occasional willingness to take risks with shapes that are more innovative than others’. The relatively large sidecut radii sets these boards apart. Furberg aside, is there another company that puts a 13m radius on a mid-60s deck?I like the blend of camber, long sidecut, taper, and gradual shovel shape. Should be versatile and well behaved in the backcountry – prioritizing speed and steeps stability while being less prone to hooking and more easily slarved and smeared in tight situations.Now if it were only 20 cm longer.@sun_rocket October 1, 2013 at 1:10 pm #670001 svelle 10 Postshave 3 years now already on the nitro/splitsticks shape. we intentionally did not put in a nose rocker. would have been too much with the tapered tail and killed the long effective edge. i ride this board in any conditions, even on casual resort days with possible hiking options.in powder never had nose diving issues, a little setback and the taper does the magic. for spring conditions more centered position of bindings and good to go.the board feels really stable at high speeds in pow or tracked stuff, still very agile and playful in slush or tighter situations like gullies and trees.the magic formula was to give it a stiff flex full camber long radius combo for a better uphill performance, and then put the taper in for pow days and agile edge control.we wanted to create an all conditions allrounder. looks like we did a good job. we are currently thinking of a second shape. still not sure in which direction this will go. October 1, 2013 at 11:02 pm #670002 BGnight 1382 Posts @Taylor wrote: @Jefe009 wrote: and gradual shovel shape. less prone to hooking and more easily slarved and smeared in tight situations.I’m not seeing this in this board shape. The nose and tail look just as hooky as any other split out there. Besides the 12m radius and taper it’s basically a voile mojo.I think K2 has the best nose shape out there for what you described above. http://www.evo.com/imgp/750/55690/291051/k2-ultra-dream-snowboard-2013-158-front.jpgThe K2 ultra dream nose with the nitro taper and 12m radius is the board that needs to be built. Actually, the K2 nose with the nitro/sicksplit tail would be better.I would like to try the Nitro though. It’s still a great shape. October 2, 2013 at 5:13 am #670003 Taylor 794 PostsThe “board that needs to built” is a split board version of this:Furburg created a new category, but they’re in many ways limited. This would push that envelope.@sun_rocket October 2, 2013 at 4:54 pm #670004 BGnight 1382 PostsExactly! Furberg went a tad too far out of the box imo. October 2, 2013 at 5:27 pm #670005 peacefrog 376 Postshttp://www.atomicsnow.jp/snowboard/#/products/Info/a-sb-snowboard/AC5003004.html October 3, 2013 at 2:19 am #670006 Taylor 794 Posts @peacefrog wrote:http://www.atomicsnow.jp/snowboard/#/products/Info/a-sb-snowboard/AC5003004.htmlLooks like Atomic laminated the cross section of a peanut. My penis is longer than that board. And all that sidecut.Seriously though, what I’m talking about with DPS is something long and light, with long taper shovel and tail, whose rocker’s matched to its sidecut, which isn’t too much. Doubling the width of that DPS ski would, quite literally, just about do it.@sun_rocket October 3, 2013 at 2:38 am #670007 barrows 1490 PostsI would not discount furberg until you have ridden one, they are surprisingly versatile for backcountry conditions. I only wish Daniel would move production out of Asia, and to the US or start his own manufacturing in Norway. I recently saw one of this year’s furberg splits (173) which one of my partners just received, the build quality actually looks pretty good, and the board is definitely more solid in terms of the core than my first year DIY split. October 3, 2013 at 2:48 am #670008 singlewhitecaveman 242 Posts @Taylor wrote:The “board that needs to built” is a split board version of this:Furburg created a new category, but they’re in many ways limited. This would push that envelope.Well , here’s one. 164cm, 11m radius, rocker-flat-rocker, and my secret weapon. October 3, 2013 at 3:06 am #670009 JimmyC 351 PostsSinglewhitecaveman, do you have any idea if that Chimera will become available to the buying public? That would be welcome addition to the quiver—and an interesting change of pace from my Unicorn Chaser. October 3, 2013 at 3:46 am #670010 singlewhitecaveman 242 Posts @JimmyC wrote:Singlewhitecaveman, do you have any idea if that Chimera will become available to the buying public? That would be welcome addition to the quiver—and an interesting change of pace from my Unicorn Chaser.We’re going to work on the width some more, and maybe have it for a late-season release. This has been in the works for several years now. If we get it to where we feel ready we’ll introduce it into our demo program for this year.Sorry, I don’t mean to de-rail this thread. 🙄 October 3, 2013 at 3:49 am #670011 Taylor 794 Posts @barrows wrote:I would not discount furberg until you have ridden one, they are surprisingly versatile for backcountry conditions. I only wish Daniel would move production out of Asia, and to the US or start his own manufacturing in Norway. I recently saw one of this year’s furberg splits (173) which one of my partners just received, the build quality actually looks pretty good, and the board is definitely more solid in terms of the core than my first year DIY split.I’ve checked out the furburg in person, but not ridden it. The construction was good, but not on par with the design. It’s size is right at the lower margin of where physics fail me. Dum Dum is still a ways off size wise. Wish either of those decks were made in the neighborhood of 180. Still, I’d love to see DPS engineering and construction put to a split board — or see a split board company match them. I may pick up a 173 furburg this season nonentheless.@sun_rocket October 3, 2013 at 4:05 am #670012 barrows 1490 PostsTaylor: agree on the sizing, for what you are looking for you would want a bigger furberg, probably 185 even. The furbergs ride a little short, I find the 173 to be easily as maneuverable as my 166 Storm, maybe more so. The quality on the first year boards, like the one I have, is a little weak. But the 13/14 split I just saw was really much, much better. Clearly Daniel has worked hard with his builder, and improved the core (denser wood) the base, which is now a very nice graphite loaded sintered base, and the precision of the split construction, which has a very tight seam and precise matching between halves. Please suspend judgement on the furberg construction until you see some of this seasons boards. October 3, 2013 at 6:00 am #670013 BGnight 1382 PostsYou kooks and your long boards. No one needs longer than a 164-67 for an everyday board. Anything longer than that in anything other than 3 feet of fluff and you’re regressing.WHAT IS THAT CHIMERA? And I want more specs. Taper? Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 34 total) 1 2 →You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
