Splitboard shape
Tobi has recently written here about suitable splitboard shapes . On the subject of center width he writes: "260 mm is the upper limit", which I can understand on the ascent. When I arrive at the summit with such a board, I can't go down because my feet protrude about half a meter over the board at the front and back. And that's despite the fact that my feet are "only" 30 cm long - there's still room for improvement. In the summer, I was able to take part in a splitboard building workshop at SPURart. For the shape, I focused completely on the downhill. That means: center width 274 mm, a good bit wider than Tobi's recommendation.
I had the finished board with me in September, but the problems started even before the first tour. Splitboard skins are available in a width of 135 mm. This is narrower than the width of a splitboard half and rather suboptimal. I tried it anyway and was pleased at first: the skin fits reasonably well and I don't even have to cut it to the width. Towards the ends, however, it could be a bit closer to the edge ... I guess the only solution is to drill holes and tune the skins at Kohla.
On the first tour, I immediately notice that more width in the middle also means more weight on the foot. But you get used to it (I hope). However, on the first traverses I also immediately notice that the edge hold is significantly lower compared to my narrower splitboard. It looks like I have to agree with Tobi's mid-width theory. But the descent was great fun!
However, there is a simple but unfortunately expensive solution to this problem: put two splitboards in the cellar, one for powder days and short tours, one for longer or alpine tours. Switching to hard boots can also improve the situation, but these boots are only slightly shorter than soft boots in the corresponding size.