Forums Splitboards Lightest Softboot Splitboard Set-up on the Planet! Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 30 total) ← 1 2Author Posts March 3, 2017 at 12:37 pm #800998 schwalbster 321 Postskarkis wrote:i think you’re missing 2 things Schwalbster…F=ma, less weight is more acceleration with the same force… lighter is faster, definitely!and sure yah fitness for sure but otherwise you are pretty focussed on weight, there is a lot that ski shape, pivot point and mohair can do for you, that’s efficiency, less friction in the system, less wasted effort, go further faster easier, and less fatigue.Yes I absolutely understand that Karkis, I agree with you, but ieism was basically saying heavier is faster for him and I was trying to say that is tough to imagine for me. Maybe didn’t get that across the right way. I personally don’t think I go faster with my light set-up. I just feel I get less tired. But maybe I do!?Crazy shit, I was not aware of Carbon fiber shovels! I bring 2 liters of water with me and plenty of food. That alone almost gets me over 3kg haha. So respect for your minimalism ieism. Yes I know skinny skintracks and I know European huts very well. I’m from Germany (hello neighbour) 😉 Heck I did the friggin Houte Route with Voile Slidertracks and normal bindings a long time ago, so I know a thing or two about weight and fatigue myself haha. Man I wish I could do that again with what I have today.After much research, experimentation and consideration, I have decided adulthood is not for me. Thank you for the opportunity. March 9, 2017 at 1:04 am #801341 jimw 1421 PostsOK… 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. March 9, 2017 at 10:06 am #801364 schwalbster 321 PostsYeah JimW! Good to see you back on this forum! The man, the myth the legend 🙂That is indeed a good use case and test!But also to underline my statement of fitness being a far bigger factor for speed. Jim is a really fast guy, because he is fit as fuck and before the Milligram his various set-ups were not lightweight at all and neither is his pack weight, he likes to bring a lot of crap, just like me 😉After much research, experimentation and consideration, I have decided adulthood is not for me. Thank you for the opportunity. March 9, 2017 at 11:33 pm #801398 ieism 298 PostsOff course. All things being equel, a lighter board is much better than a heavy one. But that’s not what I was saying. The heavier board I was talking about is shaped to have less drag in the skintrack, and it makes a huge difference. More than the weight of the board.Besides, more of the weightsavings can be done by selecting boots and bindings so the weight of the board is only a small factor. You can save half a kilo of weight on boots without spending more when replacing your boots. So boardweight is not a factor for me when I recommend people gear anymore. ( that said, I’m getting the Millisurf next year 🙂 )Here’s my current “light” setup with skins and crampons on a very accurate scale.It could be lighter as my Spark pucks are on my other boards, and the shoes are a bit wet at the moment. 3.85KG is not bad though.http://flatlandsplitfest.com/ March 10, 2017 at 12:22 am #801402 jimw 1421 PostsYou 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! March 13, 2017 at 1:26 am #801564 Orjan13 9 PostsHm Jimw. My Burton Spliff weighs 2.9 kg. Same as my new Prowder ATK carbon 1.58. Is it really possible that the Milligram is 2 pounds lighter? March 13, 2017 at 12:00 pm #801588 jimw 1421 PostsI 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. April 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm #804306 jimw 1421 PostsForgot 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: https://www.amplid.com/snowboards/295/milligram-splitRegarding 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. May 16, 2017 at 10:46 am #805221 Orjan13 9 PostsHi jimw. I was wrong. I have the same spliff as pictured and your weight is right. Don’t know what I did😮 My biggest problem now is that I want the Milligram. March 22, 2018 at 11:05 pm #817665 Trygve 24 PostsHi guys. Thanks for lots of good points being made here….as an anti-fast&light dude I started to convert as well to reach the more remote moiuntains here in Norway and trying to keep up with the Dynafit-guys. Im looking for new boots, but the different brands seldom specify the boot weight on their web page. Any suggestions on light boots with Vibram sole or similar? My current ones weigh 919g pr boot (Burton Imperial size 42), but they give me blisters :ICurrent setup: Ski (Rome double agent w Voile interface, 159): 1725g Binding (Spark Arc 2018, size M): 630g Boot (Burton Imperial, 42) : 919g Sum: 3274g Skin (G3 split skin, S): 328g Crampon (Spark Sabertooth): ca 150g Total pr foot 3742g Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 30 total) ← 1 2AmplidAmplid Lab Carbon SplitKarakoramPrime SLYou must be logged in to reply to this topic.