Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 1,332 total)
  • Author
  • #862883
    1421 Posts

    I haven’t been on this forum in like 4 years, and I came here just to say:



    Oh, and reading back through this thread reminds me I still want to meet @karkis someday! Some funny shit… not to mention I seem to recall him sending the shit out of some crazy lines… 🙂

    1421 Posts

    Forgot to follow up on this. Here’s the Milligram 163 (with Spark pucks, T1 hardware, and heel locks):

    Here’s the Spliff, with the same hardware, only difference is the Mg has Karakoram Ultra Clips, Spliff has regular Voile clips:

    So, the Mg is about 1.5 lbs lighter. Their specs are here, they seem pretty accurate:

    Regarding the Spliff weight, I didn’t weigh the Spark hardware but according to the Spark specs that should account for about 1.26 lbs. So that would bring the bare Spliff weight down to around to 7.18 lbs. So, it seems like a 2.9 kg (6.39 lb) Spliff must have holes drilled in it… 🙂 Is yours the channel version? I have one of those too, I’ll have to weigh it. But I can’t imagine the channel would drop 3/4 lb.

    1421 Posts

    Liver cancer. Freaking sucks. There was a gofundme not too long ago to help raise funds for medical expenses. Same age as me. Man… I remember his parts in the TB movies. So freakin’ smooth, even on steep AK spines. Great interview/history in the videos here:
    Snowboarding Pioneer, Noah Salasnek Dead At Age 47

    1421 Posts

    TOWELIE!! Holy shit, he’s back! 🙂 Thanks for the the awesome update! Eastside is gonna be epic this spring. We gotta make some turns! See you at the Mo-mart.

    1421 Posts

    I think it was more like 1.5 lbs lighter than the Spliff for just the board, and then another .25 lbs or so for the skins. So more like 1.75 lbs lighter total. I’ll check it again when I’m back home in a few days. Either way, it was definitely significantly, noticeably lighter. The Spliff is not actually that light considering how short it is. If your Prowder carbon weighs the same weight as the Spliff, then that’s a heavy carbon board.

    1421 Posts

    You made a lot of good points, many of which I agree with, but I just disagree with you conclusion at the end of the earlier post that a lightweight carbon board “will not make you noticeably faster”. As much as I didn’t want to admit it (because my motto has always been “fast and light is for pussies” :)), for me it absolutely does.

    As far as the shaped-ski-skintrack thing, my solution to that is to not tour with skimo racers and their skinny-ass skintracks! Or I make someone like Buell go ahead of me and widen the skin track for me. These days I’m all about anything I can do to make my life easier. 🙂 Kidding aside, the particular board I was talking about (Mg) has good camber and balance point, so the only thing it’s missing is rounded inside (outside when skinning) tip/tail. And honestly for the tours I find myself on there are very few times where that makes a difference.

    And I don’t know what schwalbster is talking about, I’m old and slow and out of shape, so I need every advantage I can get, just so I can try to keep up with (or in sight of) people like Buell and BGnight!

    1421 Posts

    OK… I have never been accused of being a weight weenie :):

    My main concern has always been downhill performance. I wasn’t willing to sacrifice weight to gain a climbing advantage if there was any perceptible impact on my downhill fun quotient. And I don’t baby my board… and it gets abused a lot with late spring/early summer missions. So, when Buell and Henning were raving about the Amplid board, I was skeptical. But Buell convinced me to give it a shot.

    I have to say… I am amazed. The Milligram is hands down the best split I’ve ever had, and I’ve had a lot of em. I didn’t think the weight reduction would have that dramatic of an effect, but it is insane touring with this thing. I’m on a 163, and it’s almost 2 pounds lighter than a Burton Spliff 148, yes One Forty Eight, that I was using most recently. That’s nuts. It really makes an obvious difference in how fast/how long I can tour. Touring now feels like a nice hike in the woods as opposed to kind of a slog in the woods. The board has also proven to be as durable as any other regular split I’ve owned, and I’ve bashed it into a few rocks. And most importantly to me, it rides great. And THAT I attribute to not only having a great shape and flex, but yes, also the weight. It just feels like a normal solid board, easy to swing around etc, not a heavy plank.

    But getting back to the most recent posts. On one of my recent tours there was a short maybe 500′ vert face right above the parking lot. At the end of my tour for the day, I saw this face next to my uptrack, and it was excellent pow, so I did a quick skin back up my track and rode it. It was so good I decided to do one more lap, but for this lap I went back to the car and swapped out boards, in this case for a 164w XV. This board has very similar dimensions to my Milligram 163, it’s really only slightly wider, not like a typical wide board, and the length is almost identical (and also a fairly similar rocker/camber profile). So similar in fact that I can use the same pre-cut skins on both boards. So, I went and climbed and rode the exact same 500′ foot shot, in the same skin track, with the same skins, with the same snow conditions, with the same pack weight, and guess what… it was WAY easier climbing up with the Milligram. I mean clearly, obviously WAY easier. So I dunno what to make of that earlier claim of actually preferring heavier gear. The only thing I can think of is that there may have been other factors at play there, for example the rocker/camber profile of the heavier board was more suited to the skinning on that particular approach. But for this all-things-being-pretty-much-equal comparison I did… there was just no comparison.

    I own a lot of splitboards that I like, and now the only one I want to take out is the Milligram.

    1421 Posts

    Played out. 🙂

    Pic from a couple weeks ago, after the first big storm. Good coverage all the way to the car, super fat up high, just enough down low.

    1421 Posts

    It is the ‘Furberg’ definition of taper that is being used. It is a bit confusing. I do not see it mentioned on the current site. It looks like he is calling it reverse sidecut now which is better than using a term that already has a definition.

    This is from his first year’s site:

    While taper is a big trend on freeride skis, Furberg Snowboards is the first brand to introduce it on snowboards. Taper means that the turning radius ends a distance before the nose and the tail and pass on to a reversed sidecut towards the nose and the tail. On hard packed snow, boards with rocker looses the edge contact where
    the board bends upwards. There rocker boards are extra suitable to combine with taper. Taper makes the transition from turning radius to the nose and the tail very smooth and long. Therefore the board does not cut through the snow in the same way as the pressure is distributed over a larger section of the edge. Taper also makes it easier to turn the board and ride with sliding turns in soft snow. Taper is so great that if we had to choose between rocker and taper, we would have chosen taper.

    I think the original Fish actually had 40mm of taper which was cut back to 30mm of taper the 2nd year. That is a lot. I called those boards twitch turners. Twitch your back foot and they were going a different direction. Great in the tight trees, not so fun in open powder.

    Yeah, that’s confusing. Just use a different term than one that’s already well understood to mean something else FFS!!

    Anyway, about the Fish… never heard of one that had 40mm, but maybe they did. That is a shitload of taper. I had a Fish from one of the first years and it was 30mm. I split it and the very first run I took it on was this chute:

    I think I just about crapped myself up there, that thing was so twitchy. Never really felt comfortable with it and eventually sold it. I guess it worked for Terje though!

    Then I bought a Malolo, with 20mm taper and slightly less setback. Still too directional for me. Still have that board collecting dust if anyone is interested. It did have a cool graphic! 🙂

    1421 Posts

    Maybe, I guess I’d say try it with your stance and see. I just got that same board, and found that the split version measures narrowed than the specs in all width dimensions (nose/waist/tail) by a couple mm, so it’s probably right on the borderline. With that size boot every mm makes a difference.

    1421 Posts

    Thanks for that info, I just thought about the heel cup after I posted that and was wondering if it was different. Anyway FWIW I’ve ridden with my 295 Fitwells in a size M Afterburner (and M heel cup) without the heel cup being positioned all the way back, and the boot seemed well centered on the baseplate. Also, the heel of the Fitwell is pretty narrow compared to a standard snowboard boot so if anything I think the M heel cup would fit better. You may also need lengthen your straps, particularly the toe strap as the toe of the boot curves up and the toe box overall takes up more room vs. a standard boot. I found it worked better with a size L Burton capstrap that I swapped in.

    1421 Posts

    The size M and L baseplates are the same length, only the width is different. The Fitwells aren’t super wide compared to most regular boots, so your M Afterburners should be fine. Dimensional specs here:

    You might need a wide board depending on your stance and the particular dimensions of your board. I have the 295 Fitwells and there is definitely more toe/heel overhang than my regular Burton boots. I hate wider than normal boards, so I took a belt sander to the boot soles and rounded off the toe and heel and bit, which helps with some of the overhang. Still not much time on the boots (still looking for liners that don’t suck) so I don’t know if that little mod will cause any problems, but I suspect it will be fine.

    1421 Posts

    Oh man, that’s funny… sorta. 🙂 You would think having Xavier’s pro model they would have a clue about this. I assumed it was just a manufacturing defect but maybe it was actually intentional?? Weird.

    Anyway, thanks for all the help working this out! I still need to send it back in, just spoke to someone there about that and will be sending it next week. Gotta pull off the old hardware and move it to the 167. I’m scared of how stiff that board is, I’m used to my wet noodle Spliff! 🙂

    1421 Posts

    I just ran into the same issue! Ordered a 159 from mountaingear on insane closeout price, mounted up all the hardware and was like “wait a minute, something isn’t right here…” It would probably be OK with older bindings using the regular Voile climbing wires, but with the Tesla system bindings they require a precise position of the heel rest to match up with the climbing wires from the binding baseplate. Not sure about Karakorams. It’s only an issue with the 159’s. The folks at mountaingear were super helpful. They measure the other 159’s they had in stock and they were all the same. The 167 (and presumably 163) were OK. I ended up exchanging it for a 167.

    Couple other observations:

    – These boards are stiff as f*ck!! Easily the stiffest board I’ve had. Also, the split version is actually stiffer than the solid (I have a 163 solid from last year). It’s about the polar opposite of my main board, a Burton Spliff 148! 🙂

    – The split versions appear to be narrower than the specs in all width dimensions by a couple mm. As if they took a solid, cut it in half, and the difference is due to the removed material from the cut. Again compared to my 163 solid. A bit worried about this for toe/heel drag, but the dimensions are pretty close to my old Jones 164 which I didn’t really have issues with.

    – The nose/waist/tail widths appear to be exactly the same for all 3 lengths, which is a bit odd. I confirmed that those specs actually match between the 159 and 167 split. The 167 is just longer.

    1421 Posts

    Saddlebag Road is open! Just posted some info on TGR:

    Coverage is OK, but not great. Lots of chutes that normally go, don’t. Or they look way spicier than normal. Stuff up high is still transitional.

    120 is supposed to open all the way through the park on Monday (dammit why couldn’t they have done it this weekend!)

    Tioga = Dryoga

    1421 Posts

    ^^^ well-done article.

    Here’s an interview with her on the Karakoram site:

    1421 Posts

    WTFing F?!? Got on for the first time in months to find this… Don’t know what to say. So terrible. 😥 Her TR’s were always so inspiring and it really seemed like she was living life. RIP.

    1421 Posts

    Yeah Morgan, next year you should come out, now you know for next season that you gotta stay in climbing mode mentally a little longer. 🙂

    The pond skim was the day before the descent. I figured doing some skim laps and chillin’ on the snow island with a beer would keep my mind off the next day’s task! Interestingly, that pond totally changed the next day. The first day there was no water at the outlet, and the second day there was a full-on river. The snow island totally shifted too, I’m not sure you could even get out onto it anymore. That just underscored to me how much snow conditions in general can change up there on a daily basis. I feel super lucky to have had all of the factors line up enough to do that descent on my first time up there.

    1421 Posts

    Well… I have to say that I always knew all those years of scraping my way down steep-ass chutes off the Dana Plateau in shitty conditions would someday pay off!


    Here are a few helmetcam stills to add some perspective. I have a ton more pics that I’ll get up one of these days with a proper TR, but in the meantime I’m still kinda processing the experience. Glad I went and glad I did it with solid partners. Such a different experience from my typical eastside jaunts.

    This is mid-turn near the top of the steepest sustained section, about where I was in the shot Buell took from above at the rock at the rollover. Hannah is the tiny dot in the middle. The crux traverse to get around the main cliff band is riders left of her. From this point that is not obvious. All this stuff looks so different from above. The face is BIG.

    This is below the crux, about to cut riders right to get onto the glacier. I guess normally you can descend the face a little further and cut over, but we didn’t see any reasonable exit lower down. Russell said it looked totally different from last year. It’s also not obvious from above but if you keep going down that face it ends in either a big cliff or a big crevasse… or both. Awesome.

    So, above Buell posted the closeup pic of the exit onto the glacier. If you look really closely in that pic, you can see the tracks from the skiers the day before. Even then it’s not totally obvious that they had to cross a crevasse. We took pics with my DSLR from below and on the way up and zoomed in to check it out, and it looked totally fine. It’s not until you’re above it that you can really tell. Here’s a shot from where we traversed onto the glacier, just above the crevasse, Buell above and Hannah below.

    Closer view:

    It was a total mindf*ck. I knew I needed to get across that thing before I started thinking about it too much. Hannah actually got frozen there for a while, understandably. Here’s the helmetcam view mid “point it” over the semi-collapsed snow bridge. Glad I didn’t look down!

    Hannah finally made it across. Here’s a couple shots of her exiting the Adams glacier that kinda put the size in perspective. You can see where you’d end up if you fell on the face. Not good.

    Backing up, this shows all of the steep part of the face (Hannah is down there in the bottom right). The earlier pic that Buell posted of me and Hannah was taken from the small rock band at the top left. The crux is the riders left traverse through the next two rock bands, and the traverse onto the glacier is to riders right below the third rock band and out of the pic. I think normally you can continue riding the face down to the next smaller rock band and traverse out around there, but that wasn’t happening this time.

    I have to say, the pond skimming was a little less mentally exhausting! 🙂

    Oh yeah, one more thing….


    I think I’m gonna claim 1st Clownboard descent. 🙂

    Actually, on that topic one cool thing was that several different riding setups were represented on that descent:

    – Burton Imperials, Burton Spliff 148, old Spark Franken-Fuses (me)
    – Fitwells, Jones Carbon Solution 161, Karakoram Primes (russman)
    – Dynafit TLT’s, G3 Carbon Black Sheep 158, Phantoms (buell)
    – Token skiier and all-around badass (hannah)

    1421 Posts

    Nice! Heard about those last couple from Buell, sounds like you lucked out on the timing. Both EMC and Jefferson look awesome! Seems like it’s been a pretty tough spring to get decent conditions. Lots of weird massive dump followed by rapid heat cycles.

    Would love to see you post the full TR’s here instead of linking to a blog, it makes it a lot easier to search and find beta. Extra style points. 🙂

    Here’s a contribution to the stoke. I made a couple trips out that way in the past month or so. Lucked out and got Middle Sister from the summit down the Diller headwall in mid-April. Been wanting to get that line forever, it was nice to get it in great conditions. Long story behind that one so will post a separate TR on it sometime, meanwhile… dropping!

    Was out at N. Sister a couple weeks before you guys got EMC. It had just dumped the night before. Went out with my husky not expecting much, but it was awesome. Skinned right from the car.

    At about 7k things started getting deep. There was over a foot of awesome pow, and there were clouds up high keeping everything cool and stable. No snow movement anywhere. This woulda been the day to get EMC or any other line up there in epic pow.

    As it was, Mally was getting tired of potholing and being blasted with wind and snow, so we just headed down the low angle pow.

    The snow turned to glop on the way out, and was completely melted at the TH by the time we got out (there was probably 5″ at the TH when I started).

    It got really hot after that and a bunch of stuff slid, I think you and Buell found that as well. Looks like things are shaping up now for nicer spring conditions. Might be heading back out that way soon…

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 1,332 total)