Forums Splitboards Amplid Millisurf Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total) Author Posts November 25, 2017 at 4:38 pm #813238 buell 534 Posts Cbalke just did a video interview with Peter Bauer about the Millisurf and posted it on the home page. From talking to Amplid and watching the interview, it sounds like they wanted to create a board that is great in powder, but handles a wider range of conditions well. When I spent winters in Utah I loved good powder boards. In the Eastern Sierra, a splitboard needs to be able to do anything, so I haven’t had a true powder board for a few years. I am hoping it rides as advertised because I would be stoked to have the light weight of the Milligram in a board that excels at deep powder (a repeat of last season’s snow would also be nice!). overall length (mm) 1570 1610 running length (mm) 1120 116 waist width (mm) 259 261 nose width (mm) 310 312 tail width (mm) 292 294 sidecut radius (m) 9.1 9.1 approx weight (kg) 2.5 2.6 rider weight-range (lb) 120-175 145-200 This is Millisurf thread attempt #2. The forum ate the original thread when I tried to edit the first post. November 26, 2017 at 7:01 am #813273 Snurfer 1448 Posts Impressive. I really enjoyed listening to Peter talk about his designs and the motivations behind them. Its refreshing not hearing a bunch of mindless hype (a recent new binding system comes to mind). And of course this board looks really fun. Too bad for me I prefer longer boards 🙁 Shark Snowsurf Chuna Voile V-Tail 170 BC Voile One Ninety Five Spark R&D Arc November 26, 2017 at 2:28 pm #813290 powderjunkie 1666 Posts cool video. thanks for the interview Cbalke. I’m a proud new owner of a used milligram. Can’t wait to ride it. Curious why Amplid is not making the millisurf any longer than a 161? I’m sure it is because you can ride a shorter board with that shape. He mentions that it is wider underfoot, but the tech sheet has them at 25.9 and 26.1mm. November 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm #813302 buell 534 Posts powderjunkie wrote: Curious why Amplid is not making the millisurf any longer than a 161? I’m sure it is because you can ride a shorter board with that shape. He mentions that it is wider underfoot, but the tech sheet has them at 25.9 and 26.1mm. I expect it is designed to be quick and surfy. It probably doesn’t need to be bigger for most riders or it might not scale up well to be a bigger board. Amplid also sometimes only releases a board in limited sizes or even just one size (163 Morning Split and the 156 Pillow Talk). The Millisurf seems to be Peter Bauer’s take on the the shorter length, 260ish waist, tapered powder shape. I have owned a 156 Prior Khyber, 156 Burton Fish, and a 156 Hovercraft in the past. They are all different, but all float really well for their size. Personally, I ride the shortest board in the backcountry that gets the job done. I think it is funny that 260 is not considered wide right now. I emailed Amplid to see if they could answer those questions themselves. November 26, 2017 at 7:58 pm #813307 96avs01 875 Posts buell wrote: powderjunkie wrote: He mentions that it is wider underfoot, but the tech sheet has them at 25.9 and 26.1mm. I think it is funny that 260 is not considered wide right now. Possibly due to more hardbooters with flatter sole profiles, and the newer HB bindings being closer to deck height? I’d love for that number (260) to not be a general target for minimum entry for me in most instances in board selection. 165 Venture Divide/Spark Frankenburners/La Sportiva Spantiks 163W Jones Solution/Phantom Alphas/Dynafit TLT5s 162 Furberg Chris November 27, 2017 at 5:52 am #813345 buell 534 Posts powderjunkie wrote: cool video. thanks for the interview Cbalke. I’m a proud new owner of a used milligram. Can’t wait to ride it. Curious why Amplid is not making the millisurf any longer than a 161? I’m sure it is because you can ride a shorter board with that shape. He mentions that it is wider underfoot, but the tech sheet has them at 25.9 and 26.1mm. powderjunkie, here is Peter Bauer’s response to your questions. The Millisurf – and it’s identical solid-sister the Surfari – is a brandnew shape concept in our product range. We feel that those two offered lengths, 157 and 161, will cover most the rider’s demands. If we hear from retailers and riders out there that more lengths are required, we may add them the season afterwards. Due to its shape geometry there is a lot of floatation area in these boards. Note that the nose actually is quite stubby at the very end, and pretty wide almost all the way to the tip. Other more traditional shapes might be 170 long in order to reach the same floatation surface. But keeping the boards short will make them feel a lot more surfy. Concerning the width: For most of our riders with footsize US 9 – 12 a waist of 260mm is the best combination between “no toe drag” on hard pack and not feeling like riding a toilet door when it gets to edge-to-edge quickness. I hope that helped. Otherwise please shout! Thanks, Peter Bauer November 27, 2017 at 7:50 pm #813369 Taylor 792 Posts The Millisurf is a beautiful and smart design, and I’m really enjoying @cbalke‘s interviews with shapers like Peter and Daniel, but… I laugh out loud when I see one model offered in two shapes whose easily-sunk sizes — 157 and 161 — differ by all of 2.5%. Why not a 159 too? Way to cover the middle 10% of the body-type bell curve. And Peter’s claim about the adequacy of 260 waist widths can reach to size 11 boots, but it’s not enough to prevent boot out on high angle steeps or carves with a size 12. Better to rail the toilet door than swirl in the bowl. @sun_rocket November 28, 2017 at 9:03 am #813399 barrows 1490 Posts Yep, gotta agree with taylor on the sizing thing. I have size 10.5-11 feet, ride in 28 mondo boots, and require a 26 cm waist minimum on a standard sidecut board (9-10 meter radius), and prefer a bit wider, especially with my preference for tapered shapes. And the 161 milli is not really long enough either with less than 120 cm of edge contact. More sizes would be nice. Not everyone is Buell’s size! At just under 6’2″, I need at a minimum a 166 in a standard shape board (around 125-130 cm edge contact), and 160-163 can work for me in a cut off tail shape like this, but only with true 125 CM of contact, otherwise my height is not stabilized, and the tendency for the nose to get overloaded, and trip is high (yes, I have tried shorter, and it does not work). November 28, 2017 at 10:31 am #813401 buell 534 Posts barrows wrote: Yep, gotta agree with taylor on the sizing thing. I have size 10.5-11 feet, ride in 28 mondo boots, and require a 26 cm waist minimum on a standard sidecut board (9-10 meter radius), and prefer a bit wider, especially with my preference for tapered shapes. And the 161 milli is not really long enough either with less than 120 cm of edge contact. More sizes would be nice. Not everyone is Buell’s size! At just under 6’2″, I need at a minimum a 166 in a standard shape board (around 125-130 cm edge contact), and 160-163 can work for me in a cut off tail shape like this, but only with true 125 CM of contact, otherwise my height is not stabilized, and the tendency for the nose to get overloaded, and trip is high (yes, I have tried shorter, and it does not work). I wouldn’t figure the 161 would be big enough for you Barrows, especially in Colorado snow. At my size I was really hoping for a 156, but I had to settle for a 157. ; ) Another data point, Stoudema ordered a Millisurf. For his riding and at 165-170 pounds Amplid suggested he get the 161. The weight range on the specs goes up to 200 pounds on the 161, but that would be rider and conditions dependent. Taylor, not many production splits are made for you, as frustratingly know. Maybe they will make you a custom 180 to go with your custom Donek and your custom board from Scooby2. Not likely, I assume. Hopefully the Millisurf is worthy enough and popular enough that Amplid will be able to produce a broader size range. At the other end of the scale, my wife could use a 152, but at least the 157 should work for her for now. November 28, 2017 at 1:57 pm #813406 Scooby2 612 Posts I reckon the listing of weight ranges on these newer lightweight boards is more of a statement that the buyer shouldn’t exceed the stated weight range and expect the board to survive for a long time. Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total) You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
