TWM

I raced for Nitro back then (it actually started in 1991 or so), and had a quiver of hip-dragging asyms (that kinda sucked in a race course) with riveted ski racing boots and then the Pyro twins, with a custom-widened 28” duck stance. Super stable for landing airs. Many of us did both, and it was fine. I’m glad to have come up riding a diversity of equipment and styles, including bad equipment on bad snow. It.s the forge of well rounded snowboarding.

Review: I had high hopes for these bindings but the highback is not stiff enough. Everything else about the binding is great -- the adjustability, the baseplate stiffness, the canting, etc., but the highbacks are too soft to provide leverage and stability on high-angle heelside rail. Regular foot rider, 6'4", 225lbs, 35/20 on a 170/30.5/10-13m custom Donek Sabre. Riding a stiff, plastic-insert-modified US size 12 front boot. After half a season, dissatisfied, I modified the binding by drilling two holes on the front foot heel cup about 2cm cm rotationally fore, or left, to bring the highback parallel to my heel edge. This helped some, and did, as a matter of geometry, provide more leverage -- but materials seem to soft to transmit rather than flex out that leverage. Generally, snowboard bindings still aren't designed for heel side demands of soft boot railing. Who will break out and do it for us? Modified highback angle:

Fun fact: Lifts will spin in Arizona even later than Timberline's spring season (but not summer, of course), through May 29th. I always enjoy railing morning groom, even if it’s slush.

We’ll have to disagree on flimsiness. I ride one on often hard resort snow too; while certainly not damp, it’s absolutely stiff and stout—and I’m 6’3” 225#—not flimsy.

Thanks guys. I will email Bruce, but this is quite helpful decoding. It’s a new-to-me board that I acquired on trade, and, despite its age, it’s a beautiful, quiet, damp, stable and hard-carving board. A pleasant surprise to be sure.

They’re fundamentally different. I’ve always wanted DPS to make a snowboard-wide ski for me to ride in pow; the gen one Furberg is as close as anyone’s gotten to that. How one designs a board for primarily breakable snow surfaces (pow) rather than primarily hard pack (resort) snow differs greatly; the gen one is the only shape on that wall designed primarily for the former, and it’s the only board on that wall that derives curvature for turning more from rocker than sidecut. The 195 Glissade, 193 Dupraz, and 187 Donek (which I designed for AK) are all unsinkable in the pow — their forward surface area allows one to charge pow with little change to one’s normal fore-aft weighting. You can weight forward and charge. They’re also large radius turners—best at big, fast pow turns in open terrain or romping atop chop at speed. While they plane up fast, their shapes don’t otherwise beget easy slarving or pivoting with sluggish slow turn in and out. Their long tails are no friend of tighter terrain. The gen one, on the other hand, focuses surface area toward the middle of the board. It requires more centered weighting. Its long sidecut, mellow rocker, and early tapered ends afford extremely even pressure along the length of the edge, making it more stable at speed (less distal volume is also less prone to being tossed by variations in snow surface) and yet also very easy to pivot, slarv and smear. It takes more speed to plane but carves powder like a dream, displacing less snow and carrying more speed through the turn as the stiff rocker is preflexled into the turn, if that makes sense. I also have a 187 custom split whose core was shaped (not pressed) to rocker profile, and it too carries tremendous speed through turns while displacing surprisingly little snow as it’s not having to force camber to shape through the pow. I could go on, but those are some of the differences of these boards’ attributes off piste.

For shredding pow, which is their sole purpose (splitboarding), they're fine. For other uses, I'd replace the BOA with an ankle ratchet. Aliens are comfy, extremely light, compact (super short BSL for their size) and soft flexing -- more so than my "soft" boots. Mine are modified to have a power strap and BOA and that's it -- so, very simple too.

Notes here: https://splitboard.com/talk/topic/scarpa-alien-with-phantom-link-lever/

I mounted the link levers on my Scarpa Aliens against the advice of Phantom. They work perfectly (on what I think is still the lightest and most compact at boot for split).

Fair, fair. I am so sorry. Let’s see, the only photo on hand is below - gen one is dark green, third from left. If I recall—173/27 20m scr on a fairly short effective edge but with long, early taper shovel and tail that are engaged off piste. Stiff too. For the record, this board rails hard on groom too — fast

This is how the Gen 1 Furberg rides off piste as well—lightning quick tight turns and pivots, endless stability at speed, and uncanny float per volume. Generous rocker, early taper, and a 20m scr. It remains, in my opinion, one of the most revolutionary off piste shapes ever produced. I keep one for resort powder days, another as my go-to split, and a third still in plastic.

I’m trying to decipher this sidewall spec and would very much appreciate insights from those familiar with Coiler. “WCC” - ? “178FC-22” - I presume 178cm long Freecarve model and 22cm waist? “0156-7.5” - 156cm effective edge? And some sort of stiffness rating of 7.5?

I too suggest trying rear foot heel lift. For me, it’s one of the most important stance factors for proper waist-down body positioning at the start of a turn. It allows me to get into position, with forward lean and a forward driving rear knee, without having to too aggressively flex or forward weight the board.

Given JJA's racing and carving experience, I'm curious about this board. Any chance you could post a side shot showing its thickness profile tip to tail? If not, I understand it's a bit of a pain -- but if so, I'd love to see how far forward he reaches the thickest sections. Thanks for your consideration.

Solid. Well done.

I bet there’s a treasure trove of carving footage lurking on various World Cup racers’ IGs.

For pow (splitboarding) I use Scarpa Aliens modified with Phantom springs. They are as light (uptrack) and compact (boot-out matters in the backcountry too) as you can get, and very soft-flexing and surfy.

Quite dramatic, and completely unsurprising. And yet... Waiting just offstage is 3*C warming, mumbling something to his drunken self about "hold my beer."

I have size 12 feet. I adhere to three principles with boots and bindings: stiff, compact (to minimize bootout), and adjustable. One can always dial back the stiffness of a stiff boot (by riding the upper a bit looser) but one cannot dial up the stiffness of a soft-flexing boot. Boots: I like Nidecker Talon. To my knowledge they are the stiffest softboot available, very compact (less bootouut with Mondo 30s), and the upper and lower portions of the boot can be tightened independently of one another which is nice for fine tuning the flex. Nidecker discontinued Talon this year, but you can probably find a pair still online. Nidecker tells me that this year's Index boot replaces the Talon but it's marketed as a backcountry boot and has needless backcountry complexity like a zippered cuff. I'm skeptical. Bindings: There are many options. I have historically gone with Ride aluminum bindings. They are stiff, highly adjustable, have compact heel loops (less bootout with Mondo 30s) and rotating high backs, are bomber, and are a good value. This year I'm trying the Nitro Phantom Carver. I like them thus far for all the same reasons that I like the Ride aluminum bindings with the addition of heel rise and canted footbeds.

Kenai peninsula

Wall to wall at Monarch.

Anyone know who makes the "T-Plate Gear" binding plate shown on Yumi's SG in the first video? I've never seen that before. It looks quite nice.

I'm 49, and I've been riding dozens of days (or more) per season for 35 years. Despite not working out regularly, I only get post-riding stiffness (not pain) in my front knee, both hips, and back ankle. I've gone through several cycles of heavy workout phases in my life--bodyweight, free-weights, etc. The phase that most benefited my snowboarding, by far, was a heavy (2-3 hour daily) yoga practice. The strength, flexibility and weight loss was miraculous for body mechanics (deeply bent knees, proper upright upper body). I keep saying I'm going to take up yoga again, but saying isn't doing.

A shorter radius requires slower railed turns and a longer radius allows faster railed turns. I notice very starkly how, when coming off of 18 and 20 meter Furbergs, I must tip onto rail at much slower speeds on my 10-13 meter Donek. If initiating too fast, the board wants to too-quickly turn out of intended turn radius. Conversely, many people, when trying a Furberg for the first time, report falling onto their faces at their first attempt at tipping onto rail. This for lack of speed needed to rail the long radius sidecut. (See Angry Snowboarder's Furberg review pointing fingers at the board rather than his own poor technique.) While the speed of railing boards with long radius sidecuts is exhilarating, I prefer. for sake of safety, slower turns with shorter radii for railing amidst other riders and skiers. I find that, off piste, long radius boards like the gen one and two Furbergs vastly outperform shorter radius boards. The evenness of edge pressure begets easier maneuverability (pivots, slarves, smears) at low speeds. It makes for safer and more predictable edge hold on steep ice (eliminating shovel or tail hooking). It also affords better stability at high speeds, where the board is not twitchy and can safely transition across edge angles and pressures (drift) within a single turn. Of course, how a given sidecut translates into riding characteristics depends on a host of other design attributes like profile, flex, effective edge, etc.

The green Donek is 35/30.5/34.