What do you know about this F2 Silberpfeil?

[krambamboula]

Hey, 

I'd like to know more about this board. From what year is it? What's it worth? (It's in very good but used confition, lot's of detailed pics, no damage at all, just very minor wear) How would it ride or what kind of rider would fit for this board?

I've twice ridden similar boards but that's years ago. I loved it tho and it's always in the back of mind to one day buy one. And now I've stumbled on to this one, so is this a good start? 

It's 162cm long, 18,5 cm wide at waist, sidecut of about 9 or 10m. Currently I'd use skiboots until I find a sootable pair of hardboots. I'm an experienced snowboarder and instructor, 1m78 and 75kg. I mainly want to explore (extreme) carving more and maybe do an occcasional slalom from time to time. 

Thanks in advance

[Jack M]

I believe it's a 2005 or around there.  Decent board but tech has come a long way since then.  Waist is very narrow.  Men's race boards are usually 20cm wide these days.  Ski boots are not optimal and if they're more than 100 flex they're too stiff.  Also ski boots are much longer than snowboard hardboots, forcing you into higher binding angles.

[krambamboula]

Thanks Jack,

2005 would match up with other info I've recently got.

Luckily the boots I had in mind are beginner skiboots with a flex of 90-100. But I didn't think about the boots flex, it makes sense now that you mention it. About it being narrow, I noticed some bindings that are higher then other. This is done in various ways, what's the benefit of being higher of the snowboard? Is it for more leverage or has it something to do with the width aswell?

2 days ago I went to the guy and had a good inspection of the board. It looks and feels very solid, barely used. And next friday we'll meet in an indoor skihall to ride together on his boards. Which really leads me to think he's confident in the quality and state of the snowboard. Tomorrow I'll be riding another alpine board so I have something to compare it with.

[TimW]

Silberpfeils are extremely turny, quite short radius. Very narrow indeed so you are in for a shock in the change of angles, but that may not be a bad thing to get you properly on the edge. 

Boards like this should be something like 100 euros. Since you are in europe, to get boards like this, willhaben.at is a good place to pick them up cheap, e.g. 

https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/d/raceboard-f2-silberpfeil-mit-boots-1184029520

Includes boots that might fit you, and good bindings (but intec, not suitable for ski boots).

A more recent one but with older bindings (that I would replace):

https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/d/f2-silberpfeil-163cm-1979356242

Plenty of speedsters as well:

https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/marktplatz/wintersport/snowboarden-4719?sfId=8352f77b-19ff-4aba-97e1-fced19b78700&rows=30&isNavigation=true&keyword=f2+speedster

Edited November 7 by TimW

[krambamboula]

Thanks TimW,

This website is a treasure!

About he bindings in the second link, I'm almost curtain this is one of the 2 options he'd want to sell to me. What's are things to watch out for? Why wouldn't these be ok?

[TimW]

I would estimate the bindings at 25-30 years old, well used, plastic parts, looks like 5mm bails.  I'd be worried something might break. And breaking a binding can be painful. 

But I might change my mind if I see them in real life, not familiar with the exact model. 

[krambamboula]

Ok, so nothing too technical about look for this or that system but more general the materials, wear and age?

I don't know what part "the bails" are?

[TimW]

The bails are the metal wire that goes around the heel and toe of the boot. 

Indeed it just the wear and age. A 25 year old softboot binding I would also approach with care.

The other board has F2 race 'titanium' bindings, which I have good experience with (although the T-nuts that hold the toe and heel piece to the baseplate deserve an inspection)

[Jack M]

I agree with Tim.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they really loved their Silberpfeil.

F2 is a great brand, still making top shelf boards today, but when considering boards of this age, Volkl is a better choice.  Better materials. 

May I suggest a different approach - seems like you're motivated, so you're probably going to get good at riding an alpine board like this.  You'll soon outgrow this board in that case.  In addition to being outdated, it's on the short end for your height.  Why not save the time and money you would have spent on this and get something modern?  Doesn't have to be brand new.  If you decide you don't like it, you'll have an easier time selling it.  Look for European brands like Kessler, SG, F2, Oxess, Virus, Nobile, OES, Elan.  Bindings, F2 Race Titanium.  Boots, UPZ or Mountain Slope or Deeluxe.

https://i-carve.com in Slovenia sells new old stock and ships worldwide very economically.

[slabber]

10 hours ago, krambamboula said:

 

Luckily the boots I had in mind are beginner skiboots with a flex of 90-100. But I didn't think about the boots flex, it makes sense now that you mention it. About it being narrow, I noticed some bindings that are higher then other. This is done in various ways, what's the benefit of being higher of the snowboard? Is it for more leverage or has it something to do with the width aswell?

 

If you haven't bought boots yet, go directly to proper snowboard boots and skip the ski boots.  

(good used will be fine to start, most critical is to get proper fitting boots)

[Jack M]

11 hours ago, krambamboula said:

I noticed some bindings that are higher then other. This is done in various ways, what's the benefit of being higher of the snowboard? Is it for more leverage or has it something to do with the width aswell?

I think what you might be seeing is bindings with the toe or heel lifted?  It's a good idea to add height under the toe of the front binding and under the heel of the back binding.  Simply more comfortable and powerful.  Otherwise, some bindings are higher than others due to the sizing mechanism.  Like, F2s are higher than Burton/Ibex (avoid) because of this.  A side effect is more clearance, but that's not the reason. 

[BlueB]

On 11/2/2024 at 1:27 PM, krambamboula said:

It's 162cm long, 18,5 cm wide at waist, sidecut of about 9 or 10m. Currently I'd use skiboots until I find a sootable pair of hardboots. I'm an experienced snowboarder and instructor, 1m78 and 75kg. I mainly want to explore (extreme) carving more and maybe do an occcasional slalom from time to time. 

It's a bit small for you, especially for EC. You'd be better off with a bit longer board. OTH, it could be ok for learning and occasional SL. 

I never had a Silber of my own, but I have ridden few, of different generations, all in 172. I have liked them, back then. The one in your pic more than later carbon version. 

Of course, there are better boards, nowadays. 

Edited November 8 by BlueB

[krambamboula]

12 hours ago, slabber said:

If you haven't bought boots yet, go directly to proper snowboard boots and skip the ski boots.  

(good used will be fine to start, most critical is to get proper fitting boots)

I'd love that, but I can't find a shop were I can actually fit that kind of boots and I have these skiboots already. The other thing is both for the board and boots, I want to explore this style more. I already spent about 2-3 days a week on a snowboard or ski, how much time do I have to fit in a different way of riding?

If I can commit let's say half a day a week to alpine/EC/slalom, I would look for a better/newer set up with proper boots for sure. By then I hopefully know a bit better what kind of style I'd like ride, what width and length to look for, what kind or brands bindings are good for me, ...

Edited November 8 by krambamboula
spelling

[SunSurfer]

Also check the possible stance widths on the board. Stances have generally got longer over the years, binding centre to binding centre, and that is part of the reason for the toe and heel lift that @Jack M was mentioning. Extreme carving setups conventionally have bindings without lift added. At your height you are likely to need between 50-54cm stance distance.

And extreme carving boards are now specifically designed for the purpose. Here is a link to Coiler snowboards Extreme Carver model with a description of those features.
http://coiler.com/board-details-extreme-carve/

And just in case you don't know about this place already.
https://www.extremecarving.com/tech/mat.html

Edited November 8 by SunSurfer

[krambamboula]

18 hours ago, Jack M said:

I agree with Tim.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they really loved their Silberpfeil.

F2 is a great brand, still making top shelf boards today, but when considering boards of this age, Volkl is a better choice.  Better materials. 

May I suggest a different approach - seems like you're motivated, so you're probably going to get good at riding an alpine board like this.  You'll soon outgrow this board in that case.  In addition to being outdated, it's on the short end for your height.  Why not save the time and money you would have spent on this and get something modern?  Doesn't have to be brand new.  If you decide you don't like it, you'll have an easier time selling it.  Look for European brands like Kessler, SG, F2, Oxess, Virus, Nobile, OES, Elan.  Bindings, F2 Race Titanium.  Boots, UPZ or Mountain Slope or Deeluxe.

https://i-carve.com in Slovenia sells new old stock and ships worldwide very economically.

What's the main reason the are not loved? Because I have the feeling the man selling hasn't ridden it for a similar reason, it's almost new so not used much.

Also I seem to have made a mistake, the F2 is 168cm long. But even 170+ would be fine? What kind of waist width would I be looking for? I'd most likely want something with a bit of shorter radius because my space indoor is somewhat limited.

I will look more into that site, so far it's a bit annoying they don't seem to list prices. But being able to buy old stock boards would be ideal to buy a proper set up while still being budgetfriendly!

3 minutes ago, SunSurfer said:

Also check the possible stance widths on the board. Stances have generally got longer over the years, binding centre to binding centre, and that is part of the reason for the toe and heel lift that @Jack M was mentioning. Extreme carving setups conventionally have bindings without lift added. At your height you are likely to need between 50-54cm stance distance.

And extreme carving boards are now specifically designed for the purpose. Here is a link to Coiler snowboards Extreme Carver model with a description of those features.
http://coiler.com/board-details-extreme-carve/

And just in case you don't know about this place already.
https://www.extremecarving.com/tech/mat.html

On my regular boards i useally have a stance width of 56-58cm depending on the board. But that seemed a bit to wide for a (extreme) posi-posi stance. I'll try something around 52cm at the start and go from there.

Thanks for all these links to site, there are all new to me and very interesting.

[krambamboula]

1 hour ago, BlueB said:

It's a bit small for you, especially for EC. You'd be better off with a bit longer board. OTH, it could be ok for learning and occasional SL. 

I never had a Silber of my own, but I have ridden few, of different generations, all in 172. I have liked them, back then. The one in your pic more than later carbon version. 

Of course, there are better boards, nowadays. 

I made a mistake, the board is 168cm long, that's probably better? But good to know looking at 170+ woudn't be crazy.

In what way did the silberpfeil changed how they ride? Probably a change in materials or contructions. But how did it affect the riding, so that I can prepare myself better at what to expect. Next friday I'll have a chance to ride the board with him, so I want to be ready.

Newer and better boards would be for a later time, when I've learned more about the boards, bindings, what a enjoy most of this style of riding and have some dedicated time to actually use it on the regular.

[BlueB]

Yes, 168 is better. 

The carbon Silber was stiffer, but not in a good way. Maybe I didn't like the flex pattern, I don't quite remember, it was long ago. I remember that I liked the one you've got better. 

[TimW]

I think that silberpfeil is a good place to start on hardboots on a small budget. 

EC guys tend to use wider boards,  but to start out I think narrower is better.  Higher angles will help you to break free of your SB posture. The board is quick edge to edge and really responsive to unweighting on your transition,  giving you lots of feedback on what you are doing. 

And as you said,  once you get the hang of it,  you will also have a clearer picture of the style you prefer. 

That first willhaben link would be a good option for just for the boots and bindings if it is your size. Theb oard is too short at sub 160, but you can sell that on and get part of your money back. 

[Jack M]

9 hours ago, krambamboula said:

I'll try something around 52cm at the start and go from there.

That would probably be good if you have toe lift on the front binding and heel lift on the rear binding.  If not you'll probably want to go narrower.

[krambamboula]

17 hours ago, TimW said:

I think that silberpfeil is a good place to start on hardboots on a small budget. 

EC guys tend to use wider boards,  but to start out I think narrower is better.  Higher angles will help you to break free of your SB posture. The board is quick edge to edge and really responsive to unweighting on your transition,  giving you lots of feedback on what you are doing. 

And as you said,  once you get the hang of it,  you will also have a clearer picture of the style you prefer. 

That first willhaben link would be a good option for just for the boots and bindings if it is your size. Theb oard is too short at sub 160, but you can sell that on and get part of your money back. 

I tried out a more slalom style snowboard from Hot yesterday (157 long, 20cm waist, 9.5-8.5m radius). And although it wasn't smooth and fluid, I enjoyed it. Something with short and nippy turns seems a fun place to start.

Very much looking forward to next week, when I can try out the silberpfeil.

The skiboots might indeed be a bit of an issue, I felt a bit limited in my movements. I opened the top part of the skiboots and that made it better but dedicated hardboots (even second hand) might be a "must have" after all.

[krambamboula]

14 hours ago, Jack M said:

That would probably be good if you have toe lift on the front binding and heel lift on the rear binding.  If not you'll probably want to go narrower.

Yes, my stance might have been to wide, I felt a sort of torking tension in my back foot. It felt like it wanted much less of a forward angle, so I opened to angle on the front foor some more. It was slightly better but not ideal, so I'll be narrowing the stance for the next try.

What's the purpose of raising the toes in the front and the heels on the rear? I could try it becasue I have some "canting plates" of 3 degrees under the bindings, so I could stack them to lift one side of the binding. But then I'd loose the canting under the binding, if that makes sense? Is it worth the trade-off of removing the canting?

[BlueB]

You don't need the canting at high angles, just toe lift in front and heel lift in the back. Just do it, you'll like it. 

With the ski boots, you might want more heel lift than toe lift. Experiment. 

Edited November 9 by BlueB

[SunSurfer]

Cant tilts the boots to one side or other.
Lift lifts the toe or heel of the boot.
Because hard boots are just that, HARD, judicious amounts of lift and/or cant help to align your boots and bindings with your body. Once you're aligned then some people add additional lift or cant for a range of reasons. The Tech articles referred to above should have one on Lift and Cant. The video below is a deep dive into the alignment of boots and body.
 

 

[philw]

1 hour ago, krambamboula said:

... What's the purpose of raising the toes in the front and the heels on the rear? I could try it becasue I have some "canting plates" of 3 degrees under the bindings, so I could stack them to lift one side of the binding. But then I'd loose the canting under the binding, if that makes sense? Is it worth the trade-off of removing the canting?

As stated, canting specifically (as opposed to toe/heel lift) is uncommon in my experience, you probably won't need that.

The purpose of the lift... well in my personal case, it's like this...

• For my front boot I want my lower leg to be pretty vertical, so the boot lean needs to be at the minimum setting. That allows me to push against the front of the boot, something which is done with some finesse through the turn.
  
  Sometimes the boot I'm using (I've used plenty of ski boots and ride with Atomic Backlands today) requires a little toe lift to help with that. If I feel that I can't pressure the front edge of the board (either side) sufficiently when I want to, then a bit of toe lift (is it 1 °?) helps with that. As I suggest, it's boot dependent; I rode "flat" for years, with whatever boots we had then. Boots have different base angles so it's very much boot dependent. Boots also have different ranges of forward lean, same issue.
   
• Back foot, I can ride with or without lift, but 3° is my current choice. You can easily experiment with it, and I find this helps me get the flex I need in my back leg, which is kinda bent down with the stance - it's easier to demonstrate than to explain. Again, this works in conjunction with the boot forward lean, that's a critical thing. I like maximum forward lean on the back (the opposite of the front...) and the lifts work in the opposite direction too.

Other people will like other stuff, but canting is not common these days; lifts are very common and the F2 bindings come with the plastics designed to do 1°/3° out of the box.

Note that most hard old design snowboard boots at least are essentially floppy ski boots: there's nothing magic in them other than the binding interface, which is more solid with snowboard boots. With ski boots, such as those I use... flex is important although I used stiff race ski boots in the early years, but my style was maybe a bit stiff as a consequence. Backlands softened up with Phantom Link Levers are my weapon of choice today - flexy. 

Board width? Well as pointed out, fashions change on that. I think the most important thing is that you have a board which supports the stance you want to use (not the other way around). I rode those early century narrow boards and they force a very forward stance, these days I'm riding 40°/30°, so I need a board which is wide enough to precisely support that. I mean: my heels and toes need to be at the edge; it doesn't matter for powder much, but it's critical for resort snow, to me. So pick a style, and look at the stance folk ride for that style, then find a board with the correct width/ flex for your feet size/weight. Job done.

Stance width? Not a big issue for me, I just use what I'm comfortable with, like deciding a stride length when walking, it's a natural thing. Too narrow feels weird, too wide hurts. As someone pointed out, if you're at the limits of reach then left might help you squeeze a cm or two more out of a stance, but I think that's doing it the wrong way around.

I have an F2 SL 162 from maybe around the time of the OP's board model. The SL was a stiff little beast at the recommended rider weight (including my own 62Kgs). It really ripped and was satisfyingly responsive as a well made glass board, but you had to be absolutely on it. So it was poor indoors and on plastic, both of which make it hard to go fast enough for the board to work well. The OP's board is I think probably softer than the SL. I would not go longer than that myself, if you want to turn the thing comfortably at resorts. But this is a big board site; most here prefer Cadillac to my Porsche. For EC, ask those guys.

[krambamboula]

4 hours ago, BlueB said:

You don't need the canting at high angles, just toe lift in front and heel lift in the back. Just do it, you'll like it. 

With the ski boots, you might want more heel lift than toe lift. Experiment. 

I'll have another go this monday, I'll adjust the bindings from cant to tilt. The canting didn't make sense to me with such forward angles anyway.

3 hours ago, philw said:

As stated, canting specifically (as opposed to toe/heel lift) is uncommon in my experience, you probably won't need that.

The purpose of the lift... well in my personal case, it's like this...

• For my front boot I want my lower leg to be pretty vertical, so the boot lean needs to be at the minimum setting. That allows me to push against the front of the boot, something which is done with some finesse through the turn.
  
  Sometimes the boot I'm using (I've used plenty of ski boots and ride with Atomic Backlands today) requires a little toe lift to help with that. If I feel that I can't pressure the front edge of the board (either side) sufficiently when I want to, then a bit of toe lift (is it 1 °?) helps with that. As I suggest, it's boot dependent; I rode "flat" for years, with whatever boots we had then. Boots have different base angles so it's very much boot dependent. Boots also have different ranges of forward lean, same issue.
   
• Back foot, I can ride with or without lift, but 3° is my current choice. You can easily experiment with it, and I find this helps me get the flex I need in my back leg, which is kinda bent down with the stance - it's easier to demonstrate than to explain. Again, this works in conjunction with the boot forward lean, that's a critical thing. I like maximum forward lean on the back (the opposite of the front...) and the lifts work in the opposite direction too.

Other people will like other stuff, but canting is not common these days; lifts are very common and the F2 bindings come with the plastics designed to do 1°/3° out of the box.

Note that most hard old design snowboard boots at least are essentially floppy ski boots: there's nothing magic in them other than the binding interface, which is more solid with snowboard boots. With ski boots, such as those I use... flex is important although I used stiff race ski boots in the early years, but my style was maybe a bit stiff as a consequence. Backlands softened up with Phantom Link Levers are my weapon of choice today - flexy. 

Board width? Well as pointed out, fashions change on that. I think the most important thing is that you have a board which supports the stance you want to use (not the other way around). I rode those early century narrow boards and they force a very forward stance, these days I'm riding 40°/30°, so I need a board which is wide enough to precisely support that. I mean: my heels and toes need to be at the edge; it doesn't matter for powder much, but it's critical for resort snow, to me. So pick a style, and look at the stance folk ride for that style, then find a board with the correct width/ flex for your feet size/weight. Job done.

Stance width? Not a big issue for me, I just use what I'm comfortable with, like deciding a stride length when walking, it's a natural thing. Too narrow feels weird, too wide hurts. As someone pointed out, if you're at the limits of reach then left might help you squeeze a cm or two more out of a stance, but I think that's doing it the wrong way around.

I have an F2 SL 162 from maybe around the time of the OP's board model. The SL was a stiff little beast at the recommended rider weight (including my own 62Kgs). It really ripped and was satisfyingly responsive as a well made glass board, but you had to be absolutely on it. So it was poor indoors and on plastic, both of which make it hard to go fast enough for the board to work well. The OP's board is I think probably softer than the SL. I would not go longer than that myself, if you want to turn the thing comfortably at resorts. But this is a big board site; most here prefer Cadillac to my Porsche. For EC, ask those guys.

I think I start to understand, I'll change the bindings from cant to tilt and try it out on monday.

And thanks for your general point of view and experience, it helps a lot.