Michael Pukas

I saw that earlier in the summer too - way cool! :lol:

Feckin' sweet dude! Rock on!!! Love to see/hear more about what you've got going on there. mpp

Looks like you've been having fun - cool!

yeah, I figured... really, how many shapes are there for the ends of a plate? some concepts are bound to cross paths. And, no, square is not boring - if it's done right!

the bomber thing a ma jig shape has been in know existence longer than your thing a ma jig. These are the first pics we've seen of your plate that does not have square ends... definitely not trying to start a pissing match here. ;)

There's a chance a bracket will be made to fit the original hangle pattern, but it'll be big, heavy, & pricey. The UPM pattern builds on the Apex Composites/Modified Hangle pattern, but adds adjustability. You'll be able to use the Bomber Plate on a board with these inserts, but the adjustability of the spread of the pivots may be limited. One of Fin's (and Sean's) goals is to get the major race & carving board makers to adopt the UPM universally. The UPM pattern has a lot of advantages over 4x2, 4x4, Hangle, Apex, Modified Hangle, etc.

actually, stickers add weight and drag and will slow your down. Maybe you should add more to your board so I can keep up.

It's all making sense now. Love that nose on your plate Bruce!

Looks pretty schweet Shred! Can't wait to see & hear more details.

Mega-Bling-Bling!!! goes well w/ Ice's Ice Cold Personna! :p

Hey Bruce! Care to jump in and enlightened us unwashed masses??? :p

Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts... there are two scenarios in my head I'm beginning to see need to be distinguished, as each presents differing forces - moving forward when in a neutral position, and loading the nose [possibly to initiate a turn]. your right - it's not correct to say there is no load at the front pivot just because it slides. But because it slides, in a moving forward situation, there is no fulcrum point directly on the board. The slide allows the board to bend over it's entire length, thus absorbing and distributing the load over it's entire length. That action is what keeps the rider stable on top. When loading the nose of the board, the front pivot does act as a fulcrum point - to some degree. The plate acts as a level arm, with all of the body's mass on it, rotating around that point. When loading the nose of a board with a plate there is much less area of the board to bend - that area in front of the front bracket - than with just bindings - everything in front of the rear foot. Significantly more force is applied to the nose. That's when the front of the board folds around the front bracket and I face plant. The GS boards w/ a stiffened front end can handle the extra load from the plate, thus the nose can be loaded without folding. The plate itself should really not flex - very little if at all. The more the plate flexes, the less well it works, and actually becomes much more fatiguing to the rider. Sure, introducing a new load point in front of the front bracket will reduce the load at the front bracket. But, if either that new point is slidable or the nose of the plate is flexible, you're introducing a fulcrum point that the board will be forced to bend around. You're not stiffening the front of the board consistently; you're preventing it from bending in one spot and forcing it to bend in another. I don't have personal experience - only conversations with people with experience - with plates w/ a nose and adding bumpers; maybe some of those people will chime in! I hope I'm making some sense and not getting myself into hot water. I'm not trying to be argumentative - only trying to relay my experiences so far (as well as understand what is going on and write competently about it). It really is a simple system, and your gonna love it!

Yes - the front pivot is a fulcrum point for the cantileverd plate to the rear. When you lean forward with no nose/bumper you are actually lifting the back of the board via the rear bracket, bending it around the front bracket. If you put a nose and bumper in front of the front bracket, then you are moving the fulcrum point forward to the location of the bumper - even more force can be applied due to the longer lever. In a riding situation, since the front pivot slides, it does not create a fulcrum point [with the same point load] because it moves and allows a greater length of the board to bend and abosrb the force applied to it. If you put a bumper under the nose of a plate, and that become the fulcrum point, the board is going to bend around that point from the force against the snow. The plate isn't going to assist or support the board in abosorbing the shock unless that portion of the plate can flex as well (which on the Apex plate it does to some degree because it is not reinforced/stiffened like underfoot to). A staticlly loaded board isn't in danger of breaking - and there are no forces being applied to the riding when the board is staticly loaded. It's the dynamic loads that are applied as the board is moving forward over an uneven surface. Where ever a point load is introducded becomes the fulcrum point. At first (long before this conversation) I thought a nose - and possibly a tail - w/ variable bumpers and placements was a good idea too. A rider could modify the flex of their board to suite their preference and varying conditions. I've since been convinced it's not a good idea and board designs needed to be tweaked to be best suited to a plate.

Actually, that not true either. Because the front pivot slides, there's no [significant] load there - that's why the board can bend without disturbing the riding on top of the plate. Placing a point load out in front of the front binding via a nose will add a larger point load due to the larger level arm of the plate - all of your body mass and force moving forward will be concentrated on one point instead of two.

We may be doing that to my Kessler as it only has 4x4 inserts. I'll let you know how it goes and pass on more info when I get it... And, yeah - I completely agree - with the rising interest in plates, there's definitely going to be a market for insert kits. Depending on what mounting options are avaiable and what drawbacks may come with a 4x4 patterned bracket. One limiting factor to retro fitting old [narrow] boards with new inserts is going to be the width of the "new standard" plate pattern.

Putting a nose on a plate to provide an additional contact point between plate and board is just going to create a new load point on the board and change where the board bends in relation to the plate. Unless the nose of the plate can flex with the board, independly of the plate bewteen your feet which you don't want to flex, the board won't be "supported". It's just going to have a new point load to bend & break around. Adding a nose to a plate is also going to add more mass, weight, material, complexity and expense - all of which we don't want/need. Agreed - board design is going to have to be tweaked to be optimized for plate usage. But I don't see boards getting less beefy - and that doesn't mean less forgiving.

I should clarify that I/we are thinking the E-rings are redundant on a plate and can be eliminated - and therefore some of the hardware can be scaled down - to save wieght. But the Side Winders are certainly a valid, maybe essential to some, additon/option. Many racers are prolly still gonna use the flexy bindings too... No reason not to use a TD3 - or a TD2 base plate & E-ring w/ a TD3 top plate to reduce height. At some point getting higher off the board doesn't pay off, and limiting the height of a plate is also a design criteria. More testing!!! I haven't riden a Viste, but I've talked to a racer who's riden all - Viste, Hangl, Trappy's Plate, Bomber Plate, and he feels the Viste does not perform as well as the Karl-type plate. Apparently one short coming of the Viste is it bottoms out when the board flexes to a certain point. Can't recall exactly what a Viste, or Hangl plate, weighs, but they're both over 5 lbs. I see 5lbs as a cut off point - more than that and it starts to get too cumbersome. Yet so far the plates I've riden have been 5lbs +, and I would be happy to ride them all day. I think some of it will come down to conditioning and just getting used to riding with the extra weight. I think we're going to see that the most expensive plate will not be built or perform as well as a {one particular} lesser priced option.

Let the plate wars begin!!! I can see 2011 being the Year of the Plate. With all the buzz around this thread alone (and many of you guys haven't even seen or riden one yet), the plate concept is gonna take off! The bottom line is plates work. And work well. Even die-hard opponents like Snowman and Ice were singing their praises while riding in thick gooey masehd potatoes yesterday. When plates were first described to me the primary goal was to preserve the stance. After riding them, I think that is actually secondary - what really makes the biggest difference is the suspension provided by the action of the fixed/sliding pivots as the board bends underneath. How the plate works and the overall concept is very simple (much simpler than many here are making it out to be). Once you ride one you'll get it. As far as my limited knowledge goes, it was Benjamin Karl who first made this type of plate. It was Apex that decided to capitalize on it (with the Olympics) and put the most hype behind it. Guess it really doesn't matter, as plates are here to stay, and we're going to be seeing a lot of them sprout up in the next season or two. As you can guess, the Bomber Plate is going to be, well, everything we expect and love from Fin. Sean's plate is actually quite ingenious - very simple and cost effective, and it works! The real race is going to be who can bring it to market first, and what is their focus going to be. As Jack mentioned above, there are a couple issues that are key; Firstly, and without needed to be stated, it has to work and be reliable. Not break, like some already do... weight, weight, weight - less weight is better!!! cost useability - 4x4, modified hangl, whatever, etc. Whether the plate mounts to a 4x4 patern in the center of the board width or modified hangl pattern closer to the edge and amount of resulting edge pressure, I feel, is irrelevant. Even adding wings to a 4x4 bracket to get more metal, and presumably more pressure, to the edge is just to appease the idea of more is better. There are a couple of tricky design issues that do have a big impact on the performance, and those issues revolve around stiffness, pivot location, mounting location and hardware. Each maker will undoubtably come to their own conclusions and design. Sean's plate may not be the lightest, but it may very well be the cheapest. Fin's plate may be the lightest, but it certainly won't be the cheapest. In my mind, any plate has got to weigh 5lbs or less. I see 4lbs being a holy grail - like 3 second 0-60 for super cars. Evey ounce makes a difference with these things. Another consideration in the weight game is since the plate acts as a suspension system, there's no need to run a suspension on the bindings, like we do w/ TD2's and TD3's. We'll be able to run lighter bindings, so the net weight of bindings + plate will be slightly less than just the added weight of the plate. Of course you can still run standard TD3's, or SW's, or whatever, as that's all we've got for now... Viva la Plate!!!

Ahhh, good point!

That's exactly the issue - there's a limit to the slot size, and where the sliding pivot falls in that slot. There is some room to accomodate different widths, but there's a limit to that...

No gonna debate that, but I bet most of the people who think he's a quack are "main-stream" and think most alternative health and nutrition issue are quaky as well. Each iof us needs to do our own homework and make up our own minds. Ignore mainstream media and especially commercial advertising! There's a plethora of info out there. Pick and choose as you like. agave nectar is a scam canola oil is a scam Whether or not Canola oil is healthy is probably much more controversial, but one factor for me is most of it is genetically modified. I'll stick with organic olive oil and grapeseed oils, thanks. mpp

Yeah, the two articles say pretty much the same thing. It's TYPE of sugar that's a problem for the body, not just the fact that it contains a lot of sugar. The articles are basically saying Agave Nectar is a marketing scam. Just like Canola Oil - stay away from that too.

Bold statements, Jack, and I completely disagree w/ you on most of them. Having a plate that can mount to a 4x4 insert pattern WILL sell more plates - pleople will but them just to try them - on their old boards and new ones. A board doesn't have to be designed for a plate to be ridden with a plate. Re: affordability, if you can't afford a new board f/ Sean, maybe you can afford his reasonably priced plate to put on your 4-year old Donek to ride until you can afford a new deck. One of Sean's goals is to make a plate afforable so everyone who wants one can ride one. Think about it... There's not going to be a significant difference in weight between a plate for a Modified Hangl, Hangl or 4x4 pattern. There are other, bigger issues than weight when considering which insert pattern to use... one of the problems as Sean mentioned is there is no standard stance width for a 4x4 pattern, so even if you buy a plate for a 4x4 pattern and plan to put it on your old board w/ a 4x4 pattern, it may not fit - the spread may be too different. As far as insert patterns go, Apex does not use the hangl (edit - I could be wrong) - it's uses what we've been hearing called the Modified Hangl - not sure if that's what it really is or not, but that's what we've been calling it. All of the boards Sean has been making for testing have both his 4x4 pattern and Modified Hangl. (edit - I'm still a little confused on the whole insert thingy...)

The plate may not be for everyone. If you're into bending, twisting and pedaling the board as you ride, then a plate is not for you. It certainly doesn't completely isolate you from the snow, and there is a little but of a sensation of riding on air. It's like a car suspension - you feel in contact with the surface, but the bumps are smoothed out. Pesonally, I could care less about all that board manipulation stuff. So far the extra wieght is worth it. Of course lighter is better!

As far as I have seen, the diving board is basically there for the user to add bumpers at his discresstion to "modify" the flex on the front of the board. If no bumpers are used, the diving board doesn't come in contact w/ the board, unless the board is bent to a very extreme degree - and at that point it may break on it's own. The diving board is just a carbon fiber plank extension of the plate itself. Between the bindings the plate has stiffening ribs on the underside, and they do not extend to the diving board section.