Forums Splitboards Amplid Milligram
Viewing 18 posts - 61 through 78 (of 78 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #830934
    Trygve
    24 Posts

    Cheers, thanks for the answers! -T

    #832137
    dhrace
    7 Posts

    wondering how this board would compare to a burton supermodel 68 year 2000 I love the feel of that board and what size should i look at I weigh !60 thanks

    #840755
    Federico
    2 Posts

    Hi there,
    Need an help regarding sizing of the milligram. Currently, my split is a 159 Rossi XV and really like its stiffness and performance. But it is time to change, and as I recently switched to hardboots (backlands+Dyno DH) I would like to go for a light split too.

    I am 176 x 73 kg. The 158 sounds short for what I like in the backcountry, as I really wanted to change my Rossi 159 for a Rossi 163. So I’m thinking about the mg 163 but am not sure.

    Maybe Buell you can help me, as you tried both sizes. Any other guys with similar height and weight riding a milligram 163?

    Cheers

    #840906
    buell
    534 Posts

    Sounds like the 163

    #841048
    stoudema
    551 Posts

    I have the 163cm and it works great for all conditions. I’m 170lbs and 5’10. Floats nicely in the pow, and still is nimble enough for tight jump turns on steep firm slopes on corn days…..

    #842564
    Marek
    1 Posts

    I am riding carbon solution 168w and karakoram prime sl…temped to switch to miligram a phantom setup …Buell you rode something like this …what was the weight of it?…8923grams for my splitboard / jones skins, karakoram bindings and Deeluxe spark boots seems to me quite heavy for me…

    #842579
    buell
    534 Posts

    http://splitboard.com/talk/topic/lighten-up-and-down-2/

    I posted some weights in the above thread. It might only be of some help though because I ride much smaller gear than you. I am on the 158 Milligram, medium Phantoms and 25 mondo boots. They have also widened the Milligram a bit which, along with a few other minor changes, has added some grams. Still really light though.

    I would check out Amplid’s website to get a more accurate board weight for the current 168.

    #843946
    tyrudder
    16 Posts

    Anyone know what the deal is with the traction camber? Photo makes it look regular camber. Has the milligram always had this? Guessing floor isn’t too affected?

    #845359
    Angus
    3 Posts

    @method – Thanks for your review. Do you or anyone else have any reflections on how the 158 rides in deeper snow? I am similar size (5’10 and 70kg) so Amplid’s specs suggest the 158 should be perfect but my inclination has always been to ride a longer board than this but I’m using US8 boot (good match to the 158 waist) and also looking for climbing efficiency. How did you find the 158 in deep Japanese conditions – could you ride it with your centred?

    #845486
    Method
    151 Posts

    @method – Thanks for your review. Do you or anyone else have any reflections on how the 158 rides in deeper snow? I am similar size (5’10 and 70kg) so Amplid’s specs suggest the 158 should be perfect but my inclination has always been to ride a longer board than this but I’m using US8 boot (good match to the 158 waist) and also looking for climbing efficiency. How did you find the 158 in deep Japanese conditions – could you ride it with your centred?

    Sorry I’ve tried to reply to this question about 5 times and for whatever reason my reply keeps getting deleted. I love talking splitboarding and seeing awesome trip reports, getting gear tips etc but the user friendliness of this form is, well… I’m not going to mince my words here. Fucking terrible. Absolute tripe. Shit. No other way to describe it. No wonder no – one posts any trip reports any more.

    To answer you questions, I actually have the 163 I’ve discovered (d’oh), not the 158. Rides POW great, trail breaking easier due to less weight. I’d go with the 158 if I were you. I’m your height but 10kg heavier (bit more puppy fat clearly!)

    I ride in all conditions (japow, shitty aussie hardpack) them just aft of centre, but I like the ability to go switch and still have some board volume in front of me, I guess that comes down to personal preference.

    #845548
    Angus
    3 Posts

    @method – Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I also had problems posting.

    My preference would be a longer and narrower board but that doesn’t seem to be the way Amplid have approached the design, it looks like they have made the boards slightly wider in recent years. Am I right in thinking that the geometry of the Milligram (camber profile/nose shape/mid-wide, etc) allows you to take a shorter board and still have good float? Does it ride like a longer board?

    Separately, has anyone ridden the 158 Milligram and the 157 Millisurf and got any comparison?

    Re: trip reports, hope to write up a Norway trip which is planned for the spring.

    #847381
    Trygve
    24 Posts

    Hi, I know I asked the exact same question in this thread before, but there is one thing I`d like that might change your opinion. As mentioned earlier Im very interested in purchasing a Milligram but Im still very undecided between 158 and 163. My current bodyweight (without gear) is about 77kg which I know is in the upper weight range for the 158.
    Reason Im asking again is that I have noticed waaay too many times that my Dynafit skiing friends stays on top of the snow surface during skinning, while my “skis” sink through and therefore spend way more energy.

    Basically I just want the board which is the most efficient uphill. 158 is the lightest, while 163 might float better on top while skinning uphill but is heavier. I`ll always manage the downhill (my current split is a Rome Double Agent 159 which is surprisingly light). Any thoughts?

    Thanks in advance.
    -Trygve

    #847466
    schwalbster
    321 Posts

    Hi Trygve,
    I have never done an in hand side by side comparison of Splitboard halves and skis and I’m pretty clueless in general about skis, so I’m just spewing out some thoughts here. I think they stay afloat better while skinning because of a) lenght and b) stiffness that has to be kept through the length of the ski( the average touring skis being about 20cm longer than the average splitboard for a given height), in other words, I don’t think skis have that extreme bend that you see on some splitboards when you step on them into a soft surface.

    With your weight I would recommend the longer one for sure. I don’t think the increased weight of 5cm more board makes your uphill efficiency that much worse compared to what you gain from increased float and stiffness.

    After much research, experimentation and consideration, I have decided adulthood is not for me. Thank you for the opportunity.

    #847514
    Trygve
    24 Posts

    @schwalbster Thank you for your thoughts and reply.

    #847908
    Trygve
    24 Posts

    Howdy again, I just got the 19/20 Milligram 163 and since Im a good mix of engineer and weight weenie I was quick to put it on the weight scale. Im surprised it actually weighs in at 3100 grams (3.1kg) without sticker or wrapping, while Amplids homepage states 2.8-2.9kg. They probably specify for without the clips, but they dont add up to 100g pr “ski”, do they?

    Anyone else here who has weighed their board without binding interface?

    Cheers,
    Trygve Veslum

    #848063
    Mike
    26 Posts

    Interesting – haven’t weighed my board but have had similar issues with both the Jones Carbon Excavator Shovel and Karakoram Prime X Carbon bindings being heavier than advertised (392 vs 377g for shovel, 656 vs 580 for bindings – though in fairness that was with the normal toe strap and not the airstrap).

    Curious as to how much variation there is and should be in these things…

    #848147
    Scooby2
    612 Posts

    -ahhh, taking a break from the world here.
    I think with gear that does not involve wood, it’s just marketing. Or the first months of production goes out and the failure rate is higher than anticipated so material thicknesses are increased.

    I have had mostly paulownia snowboard cores that are as much as 300 grams different in a 164cm within the same shipment of wood but different trees (from S. Carolina). Poplar (Yellow) and balsa vary lot also. I think with a highly automated process and pressing at high psi, there is probably very little variation in the amount of resin in a manufactured board. I think weight growth in a board is probably due in part to wood, and in part probably due to adding some more fiber to reduce failures and warranty rates in light gear. Hopefully the extra grams means you wont crack the board in a dip in touring mode.

    Splitboard manufacturers have been slow to recognize that like a ski, a split needs a thicker core than 7 or 8mm for touring which is basically skiing with all weight on one foot in terrain dips, or just more composite reinforcement on the deck side in the center. Skis have like 10-13mm thick cores and usually a big patch of fiberglass and commonly denser wood under the binding area. To compensate for the stiffness this results in, bc boards just need to lose the camber in my opinion.

    #848471
    Trygve
    24 Posts

    Hi, I wanted to give an update on the Milligram-weight situation. So I got response from Amplid where they admit that my copy is too heavy, and it seems that it for some reason got the wrong wood core. Supposedly it will be even more fun to ride, and they have given me an acceptable deal on next years model.

    @mike Too bad to hear they are off. I think the biggest cheaters in the game so far is Grivel. Buy a pair of crampons from them and you`ll be sure they are way heavier. Maybe they weigh without the spikes or something 😉

Viewing 18 posts - 61 through 78 (of 78 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.