Forums Splitboards Amplid Milligram
Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #810970
    buell
    530 Posts

    So, I have around 80 days on a Milligram now (65 on the 158 and 15 on the 163). It is just a great board. My wife is also riding one and, for us, the durability has been outstanding. I am going to get a new one this season, but my two year old one is doing perfect. You would never know it had 65 days on it.

    I am going to sell my 163 Milligram that I used last year for deep days because Amplid came out with a carbon powder board, the Millisurf!

    #815254
    buell
    530 Posts

    For those who are interested, Colin put up a review of the Milligram on the SB.com homepage.

    There is a bunch of information from me, based largely on this thread. Additionally, six other riders with at least a season on the Milligram also added their thoughts and images. It is definitely worth a look.

    Thanks to everyone who contributed.

    #815275
    mgco3
    45 Posts

    That is a very nice review of the Amplid Carbon boards. I rode a LabCarbon Split the past two seasons. I absolutely love this board while I see that the very few concerns I have about it seem to have been fixed. great stuff!

    Amplid Milligram 163 and LabCarbon 162, Phantom Alpha 14/15, Atomic Backland, Scott Orbit II
    https://mgco3.wordpress.com, https://www.instagram.com/conathanjumpman/

    #816936
    Method
    144 Posts

    I bought a milligram a little under a year ago and have done a southern hemisphere winter (Australia 2017 – one of the best seasons in memory) and a 2 week trip to japan this Feb.

    I don’t think I’m getting any fitter, just older, but I definitely noticed I am generally faster and less fatigued touring with this board than with my old jones split.

    I did upgrade to carbon poles at the same time, so there was a slight weight saving there as well. Also, I got new, lighter skins (kohla) that came with the board.

    To be honest I’m not that good a rider to notice subtle ride differences between boards, but I’ll try and do my best to describe the difference with my old split (jones solution 161).

    Firstly, size. My choice was between a 158 and 163 (i’m 5 10 and 80kg). The whole point of this board for me was to save weight so I was loath to go big, but I always go to japan at least once a year which usually involves some knee deep trail breaking at some point so I though about a bit of extra length for this, but in the end I went with the 158.

    Touring – as I touched on, I found much easier with less weight on your feet and in particular booting (which we do a lot of in Australia) had noticeably less weight on your shoulders. The kohla skins that I bought with the board are noticeably lighter than my G3 high tractions. I used to be a “grip is everything” guy, but maybe my technique is improving and I now prefer low drag/weight.

    Riding – I always thought of the jones solution as a bit of a tank, definitely not as manoeuvrable as a solid. Now with the amplid being lighter I think it makes turns easier and more responsive. I haven’t ridden it in any really bad, icy, puckering traverse style conditions, but it seems like it holds an edge nicely.

    Durability – So far the board seems to be not to sensitive to the rigours of split boarding, although I guess more time will tell. Australia is definitely a place that is hard on your board.

    They’re definitely pricey, I got a demo board for half price. Can’t see why you wouldn’t do this if it was an option. They even sent me pictures of the exact board I was getting so I could assess dings and scratches.

    Here’s a photo from a big spring day trip I did to Mt Feathertop in Victoria which was a 22km round trip – I sure appreciated having less weight that day!

    Aussie Alps

    #824724
    russman
    688 Posts

    Hey Buell,

    I just want to circle back to this thread and ask you Amplid guys how you have found the durability of the Milligram? I just picked up the 163, and I’m super stoked to give it a solid review!

    The lightness and softer flex, of course, raises durability questions for me. I’ve gotten 3 huge seasons out of my Jones Carbon Solution(s) in the past, and I’m curious to see how this board holds up in comparison.

    Happy shredding everyone!

    -Russman

    #824777
    buell
    530 Posts

    Hey Buell,

    I just want to circle back to this thread and ask you Amplid guys how you have found the durability of the Milligram? I just picked up the 163, and I’m super stoked to give it a solid review!

    The lightness and softer flex, of course, raises durability questions for me. I’ve gotten 3 huge seasons out of my Jones Carbon Solution(s) in the past, and I’m curious to see how this board holds up in comparison.

    Happy shredding everyone!

    -Russman

    From my experience and knowledge of other Milligrams, durability seems totally fine. I know of one that broke, but it took a big hit to do it and it was already well used. I bought a new Milligram for last season but never took it out until last June because of the crappy snowpack. That means my original Mg has three solid years on it and quite a few rock hits from last year. It is doing totally fine with no unexpected damage. The new one is a bit stiffer, but I don’t know if that was a design change or if my original Mg is just well ridden.

    The carbon in the carbon Solution seems intended to make a burly board that is not super heavy (it is not really a lightweight board either). I bought a carbon Solution but returned it because it just seemed way too stiff for me. The carbon in the Mg, combined with a super light core, is intended to make a super light splitboard that works well in a wide variety of conditions for a variety of riders.

    Russman, I think you will be the best at destructive testing of the Mg. I am pretty sure you outweigh me by about 60 pounds (I am 145). While the carbon Solution has held up, IIRC you have had some issues with your Ultracrafts which is intended to be a lightweight split? I look forward to seeing what you think!

    #825334
    powderjunkie
    1663 Posts

    Hey,
    I’m the one that broke one half of the board on a direct hit to a rock last year that Buell mentions.

    I bought a used 163 milligram demo board off Jimw last year. I had a couple days on it and really loved the weight and liked the slightly softer flex compared to a jones solution as it is more playful and easier to turn at slow speed.

    I’m 5’10” and weight between 180 and 185. I was going at a moderate speed in good powder and took a direct hit to a submerged rock that send me over the bars in a violent crash. It was the toe edge board half that broke right at the insert for the heel lifter pad. The edge or base material didn’t break, only the topsheet/core.

    My feeling is that a non-carbon split board would not have broke, but that is just a hunch. A normal splitboard could easily have also busted on that crash. I think all splits are more susceptible to breaking compared to a solid board and anyone buying a carbon board should accept that fact that they are more prone to this type of damage.

    That being said, I’m getting another Amplid because I think the weight savings is worth it and it is an awesome ride.

    #825377
    Scooby2
    592 Posts

    I have pretty much dialed boards that are a flat 5lbs in a 160 size, but I’d say that when a real lightweight core is made, it it the core’s failure in compression that makes them more susceptible to breakage in a crash or heavy impact situation with a rock, etc. If you put carbon on a solid core of poplar or a blend with maple or ash, the core seems to prevent to deck laminates (whether they are carbon or glass) from buckling and the board exploding in a hard fall.

    But just using carbon instead of glass only shaves a little weight, you really have to lighten cores a lot to get a modern competitively lightweight board or to go lighter than the current production boards. This opens boards to core compression failures in hard crazy falls or impacts. So take two on that yurt trip or ride a more solid, albeit heavier board. This is pretty much the same story with racing rando skis from what I have been able to learn.

    #825662
    Taylor
    779 Posts

    @scooby2 Are those core compression failures typically located underfoot, or near underfoot, where the board is dispersing binding pressure, or throughout? If the former, I wonder if there’s a way to reinforce construction underfoot to reduce potential for failures while retaining weight savings.

    @sun_rocket

    #825663
    Scooby2
    592 Posts

    Hey Taylor,
    Yes they are. Most rando race skis do break right there where the bindings end either up front or in the back. There’s a lot more of those being ridden hard and breaking so to me they provide the best information on this game of weight and durability. I had a compression failure in a superlight board that hinged right behind the heel lifter which is in that category.

    I haven’t had failures there at the edges of the bindings in my more experimental lightweight boards but I have also loaded those areas with extra tapered patches of fiber usually a carbon/innegra mix in anticipation.

    There’s a lot of ways to do it. Veneer is actually really good at preventing compression fractures. I had two boards, identical cores and fiber lay-up, the one with the same veneer as yours on top has lasted fine through three hard seasons of riding, it weighs 5.7 pounds for a 167 by 26.5. The one that was a plain composite top without veneer was the one that had a failure in tour mode right behind the heel lifter. It was the same outline and weighed 5.25lbs (that would have been under 5lbs in a 158/160). So veneer definitely adds some weight. (That board actually made a big 1700′ descent with it hinging on the pTex in the middle on one ski with the other half holding it all together. I think that shows how much stress a split can have in tour mode and how little stress there is in the middle of the board when riding.)

    That really light 165 by 25 (5.1 lbs.) I showed you a while back died in a high speed cartwheel, It folded mid shovel right where the maple strip that was in the sidecut tapered down to about 1/8th. It’s hard to test bc boards for what happens to boards in crashes.

    I have a thought that just like a 1/16th thick by 1.5 inch wide maple or bamboo strip set into the deck of the board might a good solution.

    The replacement for one these lighter boards is going to have a single poplar stringer through the middle and one on the rail, then I am using some Nomex honeycomb in the core to offset the weight of the denser wood. This is the theory that I am most into. A mix of stronger materials and even lighter materials instead of just all paulownia. Using some harder woods that have great compression resistance, then try to offset the increased mass with honeycomb and balsa. Like a Trab rando race ski compared to a Fischer, though both can break.

    The challenge is to make a board for folks who like boards to bend pretty deep and still weigh five pounds or less.

    Fiberglass works and harder wood thin cores work, they are just heavier. The trick I have been thinking around is how to make light woods and carbon act like fiberglass and more dense woods. Innegra is interesting because when next to carbon it allows the carbon to flex farther before failure.

    For sure splitboards have been on the wrong trail by not having core profiles similar to skis. Since a ski can have all the rider’s weight on one leg the middle thickness of skis is a lot larger than the middle thickness of boards compared to their tips and tails. So increased thickness under the toe pivot and heel lifter are mandatory to me in a superlight board. I don’t think folks thought that there was that much stress on a split half when touring but there really is apparently.

    You’d be a great tester for some of these theories, I’d love to send you a more flexible 6 lb. 172 to romp on, but one huge work project led into another and I moved houses this summer, so my board making side gig got skunked this last year. I bought a lot of materials though. Good thing now is I have lots of heated dedicated shop space in the new place, so should be able to crank out more boards in the future.

    get me talking about board design . . . 😉

    #826429
    Taylor
    779 Posts

    Hey Taylor,
    Yes they are.
    get me talking about board design . . .

    Good stuff, Scooby.

    Man, I’m sorry to hear about the 165. That was a beautiful and shockingly lightweight board. That veneer deters failures is just the snowboard gods reinforcing the idea that style always matters.

    I wouldn’t have thought of it, but it makes sense that ultra light splits are vulnerable to failure in tour mode: That’s when one can load all of their body weight onto a single ski, especially if spanning a log, runnel or other gap.

    Consider me on the ready to try out a 172, whenever that’s ready. Congrats on the new digs and new and improved shaping space!

    Best,
    T

    @sun_rocket

    #826469
    Snurfer
    1438 Posts

    @scooby2 enjoy reading about your board building. More curious than ever and wondering how light do think you could go on a powsurf (no inserts, no hardware)?

    @taylor still hoping for good snow for a trip to the Henries.

    Hope you both are getting some turns

    Cheers!

    @topodojo IG
    Shark Snowsurf Chuna
    Voile V-Tail 170 BC
    Voile One Ninety Five
    Spark R&D Arc

    #826471
    Scooby2
    592 Posts

    -Sorry Amplid for the thread drift-
    Snurfer, hard to say because they can be so wide. I would think the current 145cm wide shapes would be similar in area to a 160 ish standard board. With no inserts and a ptex base and 2 edges probably could be pushed down to 4.5 to 4.75 pounds (plus the traction stuff) I would think. Seems like you could build it weaker since you’d have less leverage to break it with no bindings and you’d be riding generally pretty smoky soft days.

    Making a form to vacuum bag the core down to would be pretty time consuming. A good cheat would be to vacuum mold a thin core to an existing designed board. Or just shape the core how you wanted it instead of molding a thin core to a mold. I’m kinda surprised that the pow surf folks are still using skateboard construction instead of composites. A flat base board or slight convex or concave or combo is real easy shape and laminate.

    Have you met Andy in your BCC travels who makes the Starship powsurfs.

    He made some from foam cores kind of like you’d make a skim board I think. I think they were like 3 pounds for wide shapes. I don’t know but I would imagine foam cored boards even powsurfs would have core shear problems before too long.

    As far as my availability, Day job is pretty busy through mid Feb and any new project I would take on would be board #6 in the cue of boards in various stages right now. It’d be a summer project for me.

    #826475
    Scooby2
    592 Posts

    I liked this one too.

    nice super light strap option to foam deck pads

    #826495
    Snurfer
    1438 Posts

    @scooby2 thanks for the info and apologies for the thread jack Amplid.
    I’ll reply in the “Whats it going to weigh” thread

    @topodojo IG
    Shark Snowsurf Chuna
    Voile V-Tail 170 BC
    Voile One Ninety Five
    Spark R&D Arc

Viewing 15 posts - 41 through 55 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.