Beckmann AG

More or less. Rather than thinking of 'keeping the body still', aim to be fairly loose, and pay attention when things tighten up. Tension is generally a reaction to instability, so if you feel tension, that's a cue that some movement was out of proportion, early, late, missing etc. As to baseline posture: Find a flat spot above the chosen slope, and just fully relax for a moment with both feet latched in. Hopefully you're configured so as to be bearing weight more or less evenly on both feet, no tension in the quads, hips facing the angle of your front foot (plus minus a few degrees), shoulders facing same angle as your hips, one hand for each edge. As you begin to move, note what changes, and see if you can figure out what and why. If you're simply making lazy turns on the flats, you shouldn't have to deviate too far away from your established baseline, other than to alter the pressure distribution underfoot as fits the requirements of the where you are in the turn, and where you want to go. It can be helpful to rotate yourself a little further forward for the sake of particular experiential tasks, but be aware that rotating beyond your baseline will often alter contact under your feet, often in subtle but important ways. E.g., quite often such rotation will move weight from the rear foot heel to the front foot, unless the rider in question finds a way to compensate somehow. Additional leg flexion will facilitate angulation to some extent. Try to maintain a mostly upright torso, as this should help maintain a 'centered' relationship to the board, and keeping your head up and level should improve your spatial awareness as well as your balance in general. So far as hand/arm action, save the restrictions for a little later. At this stage, start off with one hand over each edge, and note whether or not this situation changes (or is changed). For instance, if your heelside hand suddenly wants to be over the toeside edge as you begin a heelside turn, this means you've moved too much body mass to the heelside, and the hand/arm movement is a reflexive means of counterbalancing your error. If you find you can't make a heelside turn without moving that hand to the toeside, that suggests your means of tilting the board to that side is essentially 'flawed', and should be reconfigured.

Or mouse pad. Or maybe slip a section of soccer shin guard between the outside of the liner tongue and the boot tongue. Shintronics are long enough and thick enough that they can impinge on the tibialis anticus, thereby restricting foot movement. If your legs are slight enough that you could be mistaken for riding a chicken when wearing shorts, add some form of padding around the entire cuff area. Otherwise, if you only add to the tongue, your leg might get pulled back straight against the cuff, blocking knee flexion. Regardless, you want even contact all the way around without gaps. Like your boot is giving you a nice hug. Or firm handshake. As to the 6 degree base disc, what he said in the earlier post. Some prefer more toe lift, some less, and you won't know for yourself until you have a few reference points.

This can be part of the problem. Everyone will look somewhat differently at particular phases of rider development, and that appearance is affected by where the observer is standing with regard to the subject, and also how the subject regards the activity at hand. I've said this before, but the obvious things you can see are generally not the things you want to emulate. The exception being a relaxed and comfortable stance if you're riding at a low output in a low energy context. Form usually follows function, not the other way around, and snowboarding is no exception. As in, if things are going well at the ground level, the rest of the picture will probably look fine. If you're trying to refine things, you want to determine what the board will do for you if you're doing practically nothing other than standing there, and making very subtle movements with your feet and ankles. And whether or not your configuration will permit such movements in the first place. So if you're on a gentle slope, the idea is to start off linking turns, starting with whatever turn size and shape is most accessible. Gradually work the ends of those turns such that you have more 'degrees of arc' on successive runs. Do this until you almost come to a stop at the end of each turn. If each transition feels blocked or awkward in the absence of momentum, this indicates that your means of tilting the board, or your weight distribution from tip to tail are not quite 'there'. Ideally, you should be able to glide out of one arc and on to the next without faltering. (Glide is important. Without glide, the engine isn't running, and you'll have to get out and push.) Hopefully, the relaxed time frame will give you the opportunity to understand which movements create which sensations, and what those sensations mean in terms of board behaviour. Part of learning how to ride better is coming to terms with what you're actually doing, not just what you think you're doing. When you can do this from an upright posture, gradually add articulation, either in terms of more/less knee flexion, or in terms of slight angulation. And then both, when you're feeling sporty. Be aware that whatever you move in one direction for a given turn, you have to 'undo' in order to make the next. This will be a decent gauge of timing, and also whether or not additional movement is affecting your basic inputs of weight distribution from foot to foot, and also ability to roll from one edge to the next. Sooner or later, you may notice that your turns are becoming tighter, and yet you're not falling over. At this point, take what you've gained, and add a little more incline. Note that one of the points of working flat terrain is to make mistakes and explore what is and is not possible, not just to practice things with which you're comfortable. Note as well that tipping over on flat terrain hurts more than on steep terrain. (You probably know this already, but it's worth repeating.) As a rider with ambition, you can take one of two spiral paths. One spiral winds outward, exposing you to increasing magnitude of challenge. The other spirals in, challenging you in smaller and smaller increments that seem at first indistinguishable.

Anyone with eyeballs has the capacity to discern that above a certain level of skiing proficiency, the inside foot serves an integral function to that of the outside foot, and that function is rarely the safety valve/spare it was many years ago. Viewing each ski as independent platform is a good way to remain an intermediate. Both skis and snowboards can be controlled when they break ‘positive’ adhesion without 'stepping off', but a lot of that depends on how a rider opts to control the platform in the first place, and much of that is dependent on the set relationship of the rider to the board. If the plan is to hammer the edge and bounce repeatedly, without regard to how things can come unglued, sooner or later it’s going pear-shaped. Plate notwithstanding. Further, it’s being able to manipulate the platform in the terrain beyond solid adhesion that defines the athlete. Throughout this thread, I’ve offered explanations of how things might work/do work, along with the suggestion that some of what appears ‘mysterious’ can be understood by studying like circumstances or mechanism. Those thoughts have been met with incredulity/exasperation, overly simplistic/dismissive counter arguments, and what appears to be a willful misreading of my position. That’s hardly politesse. If my tone comes across as a little brisk, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Or flexion- extension. He wasn't really asking about EC, and I didn't want to initiate an international trademark incident.

Would probably depend a lot on how each technique was employed. If you want to do a rough calc on exertion in general, consider that limbs moving evenly through a consistent range of motion will generally tire less than those same limbs moving, then holding, then releasing through a smaller range. Consider as well that if one graphs the path of the COM with regard to the surface as the rider moves from one arc to the next, the least displacement on the 'vertical' will probably reflect the lesser exertion. I.e., If you squat in the second half of the turn, then extend to up-unweight at the turn connection, odds are you're doing more work than another rider that extends through the greater part of the turn, in order to better absorb the 'virtual bump' at the turn connection. Rotation being a secondary consideration.

Front shin, rear shin, both shins? Your perception of unequal leverage might suggest part of the problem. If you've 'upgraded' to UPzed boots, you should probably find yourself a 6 degree base ring. Might come in handy.

You can also turn the blocks 180 degrees and then rotate the bails to make them really small (on the TD1). Might have to remove the bail standup spring though.

Good one. Award this man two 'nerd points', asap.

So I had this beginner session a few years back. Had never been on a board, but had obviously spent a lot of time in a gym. Problem was, he had an overdeveloped capacity to clench and hold, to the extent he nearly caught himself on fire. Every slip of the foot, teeter or totter led to overdriven muscle contraction. Meanwhile, plenty of non-athletic 'normal' types over the years who managed to work their way through the morning without incident, to continue on their own in the afternoon. Go figure.

I'm going to assume you've been around long enough to see the (re)evolution of suspension systems in mtn biking. As you may recall, the original Rockshox Mag 1 was barely adequate, and saw some competition in competition from both the Proflex elastomer stem, as well as the Allsop Flexstem used extensively by Team Ritchey/Frischknecht et al. Not much travel in any of those, just slightly better than nothing. The funny thing about the painfully gradual development of bicycle suspension forks is that all of the work had already been done with motorcycles ten years previous. The funny thing about snowboarding, and the lack of suspension development, is that all of the analogous work has already been done in both bicycles and motorcycles. And yet here we are, touting the advantages of what amounts to a Proflex stem as an effective suspension system.

Because they have proven value for that application? Clearly you've never chased a particularly skilled cyclist on a hardtail through the woods. It's performance art. The good kind. Comes about when the rider in question can figure out how to work in harmony with, rather than in opposition to his/her environment. Good idea though, to believe that nobody can do something you can't conceive of doing yourself. I think I did a few hours ago, you just don't care for the explanation. And yes, obviously. I've not dismissed the technology, just the fanboy response to the use of said technology, along with the specious claims that plates are a de facto suspension system.

That's a wonderfully archaic understanding of how skiing works. A little like saying a motorcycle with sidecar has an advantage over one without on account of track width. If a snowboarder has to put a foot down, there's clearly something wrong with their approach. Also a non-sequitur. One of the reasons for the format change was the attempt to make competitions more telegenic/spectator friendly. Snowboard SuperG, while loads of fun, is neither. 'Proper' (not necessarily perfect) equipment setup is prevalent on the WC circuit, and the implementation of the principles involved isn't exactly dark magic. I can describe them in about 15 minutes. The work itself takes a few hours. The athlete learning how to make use of the modified equipment takes longer. Neither is out of the range of the average snowboarder or skier, if they care to do something about it. A plate is certainly a valid option for those less inclined to do the work to be more inclined, and that's certainly acceptable for a recreational pursuit.

Rob, That's how I was taking it in this context. Pedaling being more or less synonymous with twisting, primarily due to the negation of twisting input being the more obvious effect of the earlier plates. Tend to think of the shift in front back weight distribution as being in the realm of pressure management, rather than edge angle manipulation, though they often overlap. Though again, in this context, the newer plate designs can influence how disruptive/effective that weight distribution may be, in terms of controlling the bend in the board. As a side note, I think it's vitally important to understand the existence of, and the possible effects of pedaling or twisting, as that understanding will have an influence on whether or not a rider can meet or exceed their riding goals. Each of which will be different than that of other riders, and most certainly different than say, mine. As to your scenario: "Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to was never there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it." -F O'C. If you accept that relative edge angle plays a part in the path a board will follow across/through the snow, then it stands to reason that if one end of the board has more or less than the other, that path will not 'run true'. In your instance, if the board moves past the point of contact in a 'spiral', the effect will be vaguely similar to what happens to a bullet passing through a rifle barrel, except in this case, the bullet is stationary, and the rifle is in motion. If that's what you're after, then fine, but to my way of thinking, you're making more work for yourself. On the other hand, this might be your best option, given equipment choice and configuration. And it may also provide the experience you want from riding. My approach would be to assume the bump will influence net edge angle, plot a course that will provide an appropriate and approximate line of departure, then remove excess 'arc' in the board by way of absorption. Excess being anything left over from what the board will readily track through. Also worth noting that if my upper body is already moving in the direction I want to go pre-bump, it's mostly a matter of not allowing the bump to influence that momentum vector. Again, by way of absorption/separation/letting the board to the work etc. Obviously easier with steeper angles, as it's more difficult to flex and extend at lower stance angles without simultaneously affecting relative edge angle. Clear?

a and b, with b preceding a. Neither a or b are plate dependent, nor is the effect on b of a plate dependent on a. The plate has a capacity to enhance both, however. It would be an advantage. It would be a greater advantage if the rider in question could achieve, say, 85% of the plated board effect without the plate, as those required refinements in technique, input, setup etc, when applied to the plated board, should further enhance performance. That it does. But do you notice how, for the most part, WC racers make it look like groomed hardpack? Ice is certainly challenging, but when you consider how consistent it is, one has to wonder why so many have such difficulty dealing with it. One would think that a consistent surface, combined with consistent and appropriate inputs, should yield consistent 'adhesion'. As it does for Hirscher, Vlhova, Shiffrin, et al. Certainly works for Hockey... I'm of the position that none of them are. At least not in the practical sense; as in Mtn bikes, MX, Rally car, etc. As mentioned above, a plate can allow a rider to employ their lower extremities in a manner very similar to those kinds of suspension systems, complete with variable damping etc, and a well-configured non-plated setup can provide similar, albeit with a smaller margin for rider input error. The force distribution plates, like the integrated Marker Comshock, and a few of the Salomon offerings, were mainly aimed at the recreational performance market. Forgot to mention that risers also prevent the 'boot out' phenomenon, allowing an athlete to achieve higher relative edge angles without accidentally lifting the edge from the snow.

Obviously. Wasn't suggesting otherwise, merely offering a counterpoint. While technique and fitness are somewhat co-dependent, it's usually better, from a learning standpoint, to put 'technique' before power.

Just for fun, I gave up conditioning for a few years to see how that would affect my winter activities. Was able to up my game significantly, without injury or detriment. (Overall duration of activity was affected a little, but not performance). In the absence of what most consider 'fitness', one has to rapidly figure out which movements are essential, and which are wasteful. Carving technique out of the brambles, so to speak. Fitness has a way of permitting excess, until that excess becomes normal. FYI, I don't recommend this experiment be undertaken randomly, or without focus.

Indeed. But there's no pretense that those plates are a suspension system, and their function is distinctly different than snowboard plates. At risk of pedagogy, the original Derbyflex was intended to dampen vibration. Which it did. However, the primary gain was that the added height of that plate served to make the ski itself 'narrower', thereby granting the skier, under typical circumstances, a mechanical advantage. There are height limits in place today, on account of the reversibility of that mechanical advantage, which in one instance may have lead to the death of Ulrike Maier. The intent was to point out that what a recreational rider sees as 'less than ideal' for their own activities is actually 'ideal' for a higher performance version of their activities.

I find it extremely helpful to study analogs. In this case, inducing lean angle on a motorcycle. ->The unhampered ankle joint is directly analogous to the steering axis on a bike. 'Flailing'/ rapid movements are providing important info as to what is going on within the system. If you purposely quell them, you're ignoring the conversation. When they no longer take place as a byproduct of your inputs to the board, you're on the right path. How so? (by what means).

ONE DAY during his tenure as a professor, Albert Einstein was visited by a student. "The questions on this year's exam are the same as last year's!" the young man exclaimed. "Yes," Einstein answereed, "but this year all the answers are different." Interesting that plates seem to be favored on the hardest surfaces, and such surfaces are considered 'ideal' for world cup ski racing. Pause for thought, perhaps? Music is often the byproduct of generating vibrations on a particular instrument. And yet some can make a wonderful piece of music miserable and violent by way of their manipulation of that instrument. Consider that in an ideal circumstance, the board would fully grip the snow while gliding through an arced path. The grip will be directly affected by how well the formerly planar board can match the non-planar surface. If the board is held in it's de-cambered state by one point of contact along it's length, it will be 'most free' to do so. This is akin to a when you pick a guitar string and leave it alone. If you maintain that de-cambered state with two points of contact, the board will still follow the surface, but is 'less free' to do so, that freedom further constrained by the pressure distribution at each controlling point. This is akin to shortening the guitar string against the fret. Same string, same initial input, different vibration. Sooner or later, you'll come upon an input combination that causes a violent reaction between board and surface. Just as sooner or later an enthusiastic music student will play the 'wrong' note. Learning to ski or ride well is, in that sense, a lot like learning how to play blues harmonica. You spend the first year learning how to play all the notes, and the next ten learning which notes not to play. The plate essentially prevents or interferes with the possibility of doing some of the 'wrong' things at the 'wrong' time, thereby discouraging some of the 'wrong' outcomes. The primary drawback to date, other than weight and complexity, seems to be related to a perceived disconnect for the rider. Was hoping you would notice (among other things) that Vlhova and Shiffrin, in addition to being waay out in front of the field, are also very very good at providing near identical inputs to both feet, both skis at the same time, more of the time (see also, not pedaling). Essentially creating one 'more unified' platform out of two independent platforms. Sharing the net load of the turn on two legs requires less strength, which allows for greater accuracy, therefore less work is done to the surface, therefore energy is conserved and the skier glides faster. The ski construction thing is most likely advance marketing work. Though it's worth noting that ski manufacturers have been using various construction techniques to enhance torsional rigidity since at least the early 80's. (see Dynastar, Omega rib) The industrial teaching/coaching complex will tell you to emphasize weight distribution to the outside ski, as they will also tell you there is a benefit to twisting your snowboard. Clearly both are false, if you want to be consistently fast (etc.) under pressure.

That I prefer, but you have three other options. 1. Weight on the front foot and kick the tail sideways. (amateur hour) 2. Full body lean (aka, The Norm. Takes up a lot of space and not particularly versatile) 3. Angulate as a means of developing more tilt in less time/space than is possible with full body lean. There are pros and cons to each. The benefit of steer-countersteer as opposed to simple angulation is that it does not preclude flexion/extension of the legs as a means of modulating net pressure through the arc of a turn and beyond. Steer-countersteer does involve angulation, but as a byproduct of upper lower body separation, rather than as a means to an end.

In what way? There is minimal vertical travel, and no practical damping or means of dissipating energy in the vertical plane, etc. Agree (for the most part). But the question that needs answering (or at least acknowledgement) involves the cause of the unwanted vibration. Where is it coming from, and why? Perhaps, unless the use of a plate isolates to the extent that it defeats the feedback loop governing optimal maintenance of equilibrium. Keep in mind that manipulation of the board is the primary means toward maintaining said equilibrium on a slippery surface, and said equilibrium can be either static or fluid. The latter being preferable. How does one consistently induce violent vibration into a platform? Some vibration is the simple byproduct of the board doing work on the snow (of which I have recordings). Other vibration is dissonant, and is caused by errant inputs, in combination with the background vibration. (Have those recordings as well). 'Violent' vibration is not inherent to the interaction of the board with the snow; rather, it's the product of the rider interacting with the board, thereby causing the board to act in conflict with the snow.

That footage was shot circa 2005. Not sure, but I think that was before I shimmed my front binding to account for a leg length difference, so some of that admittedly funky funk may be related to fore/aft compensation, also the inherent time delay when moving from one edge to the other directly related to being 'off-center'. Too much outward cant on the rear binding; see also compensation. 'Edge pressure' is a MacGuffin, so "No" to that. A. The tilt of the board relative to the snow. B. The magnitude and location of the pressure you bear along the length and perpendicular to the topsheet of the board while affecting 'A'.

Insightful. One of the other points of Time On Hill is to expose your CNS to equilibrium disruption with sufficient frequency that it begins to seem normal. So doing, you slow the 'clench' response that immediately deploys in the presence of 'iffy' footing. The same response that can prevent guiding movement in times of stress. E.g., Normally, if you walk on a slippery surface and a foot shifts, all motion comes to a stop until traction is regained. If you spend enough time doing this, you'll find the spaz response gradually subsides, to the extent your feet can slide around as though you were an extra in a Michael Jackson video, and the action continues unimpeded. This is analogous to lulling/distracting the inner brain, I.e, sleeping.