carving in the really deep stuff!

Jason Watkins wrote:

http://www.splitboard.com/vids/splitfish384.wmv

On a similar topic, check that little video out. You can't really
carve in loose snow, but you certainly can load up the tail in turns
and spring between them. I was able to do a little bit of this
recently when we had good snow in this area... it's very fun, gets
addictive very fast.

Great! I like the dog running down near the end.
Fishes rule. I'm looking forward to being bundled out of a helicopter
with my 160 at 3500+ metres near Mt Blanc shortly. For hiking the split
board is the way to go. Maybe I'll attack one of my Fishes with a saw
and install the Voile hardware...

--
IainD at ukme dot me dot uk

board is the way to go. Maybe I'll attack one of my Fishes with a saw
and install the Voile hardware...

I read over on the couloir discussion area that a split version of the
fish is comming. Prior makes a fish copy now, and you could probiby
get him to make that in a split (probibly cost a good deal over the
base price though). I believe some other highly tapered powder boards
are comming from other manufactures as well. I've read that the
winterstick roundtail was the original innovator on this idea... but I
guess it took burton (and terje's) marketing muscle to finally make
the idea grab in the market.

That's what they were testing in your video clip!

Yeah, but there was some doubt if it'd come to market. Burton sold out
their production of splits this season, so it seems plans have
reversed course and they're pushing to get it out quick.

Jason Watkins wrote:

I've read that the
winterstick roundtail was the original innovator on this idea... but I
guess it took burton (and terje's) marketing muscle to finally make
the idea grab in the market.

I was thinking a bit more about this and I think that putting it down to
'marketing muscle' belittles what Burton have done. If you went to
pretty much any other snowboard manufacturer (including the small,
flexible custom builders) looking for a board for deep powder, you would
find big long powder guns 170 cms or longer. I think it's revolutionary
to suggest that people should ride the same powder on a 156. And with
great ideas there's often an original innovator who did something
similar that didn't take off for whatever reason (e.g. the available
technology didn't allow the invention to work properly). Fact is that
Burton did it when hundreds of other companies (big and small) that
could have done it didn't.
The Fish is a great tool - effortless power and control are the words
that spring to mind. And it's great for hiking being shorter and lighter.
If you haven't demoed one then do so - but don't try to land switch ;-)

--
IainD at ukme dot me dot uk

WeatherCam wrote:

No you're wrong their Ian about splits - we've ditched all ours and have
gone the approach ski route - enabling us to tour with various favourite
boards (swallow tail etc) plus we're now evavluating various hard shell
Alpine Touring boots ( much more flexible ) which will take crampons and
much better for steep icy ascents where skins will not grip and you have to
kick steps in.........

Sorry

Don't be sorry about telling me I'm wrong - it happens all the time :-)
But I'll pick your brains for more info. All my big hikes have been done
with snowshoes. AS I'm sure you know the big pain with snow shoes comes
when you when the ground's undulating (e.g. a ridge top) - the guys on
skis get way ahead. So skis seem a good idea and if the skis can be
combined with the board so much the better. But I appreciate you're then
compromising the effectiveness of both the skis and the board - which I
guess is your point.
So now to the questions:
* what approach skis are you using? How big/heavy are they?
* can you not use you Alpine Touring boots with a split board?
* do you think there are some conditions where the benefits of the split
board (not having a board on your back when hiking) outweigh the
negatives (compromised skis and board)?
I remember getting to the top of a ridge in Chamonix after a 5 hours
hike with a board and snowshoes on my pack - we were roped up crossing a
small rock face. In that situation I'd rather not have the snowshoes at
all than replace them with skis.
Cheers, Iain


--
IainD at ukme dot me dot uk

"Iain D" wrote in message
...
WeatherCam wrote:

No you're wrong their Ian about splits - we've ditched all ours and have
gone the approach ski route - enabling us to tour with various favourite
boards (swallow tail etc) plus we're now evavluating various hard shell
Alpine Touring boots ( much more flexible ) which will take crampons and
much better for steep icy ascents where skins will not grip and you have
to
kick steps in.........

Sorry

Don't be sorry about telling me I'm wrong - it happens all the time :-)
But I'll pick your brains for more info. All my big hikes have been done
with snowshoes. AS I'm sure you know the big pain with snow shoes comes
when you when the ground's undulating (e.g. a ridge top) - the guys on
skis get way ahead. So skis seem a good idea and if the skis can be
combined with the board so much the better. But I appreciate you're then
compromising the effectiveness of both the skis and the board - which I
guess is your point.
So now to the questions:
* what approach skis are you using? How big/heavy are they?
* can you not use you Alpine Touring boots with a split board?
* do you think there are some conditions where the benefits of the split
board (not having a board on your back when hiking) outweigh the
negatives (compromised skis and board)?
I remember getting to the top of a ridge in Chamonix after a 5 hours
hike with a board and snowshoes on my pack - we were roped up crossing a
small rock face. In that situation I'd rather not have the snowshoes at
all than replace them with skis.
Cheers, Iain


--
IainD at ukme dot me dot uk


Ian

First off - for small hikes such as a couple of hours or even day tours,
snow shoes can be ok - hell we've hiked through fresh without them...as I'm
sure you have. After quite a few 1/2 day and full day tours over the last
four or so years as well as many numerous hikes over the year - last year we
did a full three day tour staying in refugees...in our group were three were
on skis and they did not expend half the amount of energy climbing with
skins than we did with shoes - mate of mine was on a Burton split and he had
quite a few problems compared to the skiers, I tried it and found it to be
cumbersome - ok on mild inclines but as it started getting more technical
and snow conditions deterioated from powder to ice it became a bit of a
mare - now was it us, still trying to find a good technique or what....

Anyway as I've mentioned in the NG I lost all my kit in a house fire last
year - so I was tooling up with kit afresh...so we knew about approach skis,
our guide was also going down that route - and after a bit of investigation
I found some made by Deeluxe part of Raichle - they have a front end Dynafit
touring binding the lightest on the market - the skis are 90cm long and
weigh just under a kilo - so the whole set up in very light - the boots are
made by Deeluxe too - these are special in that they have the Dynafit
touring lugs for the bindings in front of the boots - so you can use them as
real toruing skis with bindings......also the skis take the Dynafit
crampon - currently I'm looking around for some second hand Dynafit Alpine
Touring boots ( not easy) to see how they ride - then I'll have to change my
Flow bindings to plates on the board...the Deeluxe setup in now very
difficult to get hold of as to most people it was way too expensive as you
had to buy skis and boots and most people were not in the market for both
boots and skis.

The other alternative that my mate, who's ditched the split has gone with,
is the Rossignol Approach ski (expedition) similar to the Deeluxe this will
take both Alpine boots and snowboard boots......I've used my skis and they
seem so much better than snowshoes - though only for a small climb and a
long flat section - probably cutting my energy levels down by 50%...

Sure the split's must be good - but I just find it so ironic that when we
all get lost in the anal details of a particular board - how soft / hard it
is, rail cut etc etc bottom shape, that we're willing to sacrfice that (
which I must admit can be suspect) to ride a board that's been cut in
half!!! Sure climbing with a board on the back, especially mine with big old
heavy flows must be better - but hey two of our group will be climbing with
swell panic swallow tails which are V heavy - because once they get to the
top of that bowl they want the best board for the job!!!

As I've mentioned before, this year we're touring in Northern Norway (april
24th) for a week - with hopefully another trip here or there to test out the
kit - my mate is going to St Anton where he'll be trying both Dynafit and
Scarpa Alpine boots so will let you know how he gets on...

REgards
WC

WC
Great. Thanks.

year - so I was tooling up with kit afresh...so we knew about approach skis,
our guide was also going down that route - and after a bit of investigation
I found some made by Deeluxe part of Raichle - they have a front end Dynafit
touring binding the lightest on the market - the skis are 90cm long and
weigh just under a kilo - so the whole set up in very light

That's a lot shorter/lighter than I imagined. Are they quite wide? I
guess they have a similar area to a snowshoe. Do they keep you on the
surface of the pow when walking?

Sure the split's must be good - but I just find it so ironic that when we
all get lost in the anal details of a particular board - how soft / hard it
is, rail cut etc etc bottom shape, that we're willing to sacrfice that (
which I must admit can be suspect) to ride a board that's been cut in
half!!!

I guess that they'd be fine in soft powder where your weight is
distributed over the whole base of the board. Where your weight is just
on the edge of the board that would stress the split far more. And
considering that all the best powder runs seem to finish in some steep
icy gully or trees, that's quite a consideration!

We should be riding, not talking! Not long now...

--
IainD at ukme dot me dot uk