Beckmann AG

Nice conjecture. That's not at all what I was thinking. Rather, newer plates are further harmonizing/focusing the often disparate inputs from each foot into something more useful. The effect is strikingly similar to what one gets when their ski boots are properly tuned for skiing, where the primary points of contact (ball of foot, bone of heel, eye of newt) can be aligned for rapid, accurate, powerful, and consistent manipulation of the platform. But then you'd not have any way to know that. Or that I was thinking something other than what you thought I was thinking. It's self-defeating to consider a plate as a suspension system, because it's not. At least not in the way you perceive suspension on a mtn bike, rallye car, motorcycle, etc. If you're thinking of how a rigid bridge deck is 'suspended' and isolated from it's piers by way of floating mounts, then yes. Otherwise, no. The chief benefit of a plate, is that it can unlock the actual suspension® system. What you're seeing at present is just the camel's nose. BTW, properly tuned hardboots can do the same thing, just to a lesser extent.

From the available information, 1. Revisit your setup using one or all of the variants suggested on this forum, (ride characteristics/handling can change a lot depending on your relationship to the board). 2. You have a Coiler, which means you have an established collection of data points and a builder who should be familiar with what they mean. Buying something else in hopes of fixing the problem is, therefore, a bit of a crapshoot. Keep the baby; toss the bathwater. 3. Got any video of yourself? Might be operator error? A.11m sidecut is a little large for narrow and ice. FWIW, 10 is about max for close quarters work at Sugarloaf, where the winds blow hard, some patrons are blowhards, and the snow is often indistinguishable from industrial ceramic. B. Full camber on ice is better than not. More than 1cm of camber is preferable to less. Again, Coiler. (Last I asked, Bruce Almighty allowed that he could add more if required. Other builders not so much). C. Softer longitudinal flex is better than stiff on ice. This should be proportional to body weight and intended rate of travel. C2. Stiffer torsionally is better than soft on ice. D. A metal board will rebound slower than a glass board on turn exit, all other things being equal, and assuming you can make use of this rebound. Metal, however, is nice on ice. E. Proportionally longer effective edge will improve tracking, reduce the tendency to spin.

That one is clearly well-seasoned.

Did you preheat each liner in turn with a hairdryer, hunka-hunka burning love, or the breath of a fetid hell-hound? Those liners are not prêt á porter. The intent is for the rider to hammer them into shape with a few hours/days of riding. At which time, assuming the boot shells are similar in shape to the foot, they'll be fine. Or not. Repeated preheating/wearing around the house will usually make them tolerable prior to actual use. Use an overthick or two pair of socks. OR do what everyone else does, and install a bench seat for comfort.

More interesting yet... is that The Plate® is becoming more like a properly tuned ski boot.

If you find you can't make a movement when you want to make a movement, this is a conflict between the inside brain and the outside brain. The inside brain is responsible in part for maintaining equilibrium/stability, and as such, has dominance. The outside brain is responsible for ordering the food/wine without doing the research, and as such is often disappointed. In other words, if you can't move at slow speeds, it's probably because you're trying to move something that shouldn't/cant be moved without objection from the inside brain. Which means you have to try moving something else, something smaller, to get the desired result. And of course that might not make much sense out of context. It can certainly seem that way. However, there are only so many ways to get a board to turn, which means the goal, while asymptotic, can at least be approached. Even with 'crayon teeth'. E.g., If, in order to make a turn to the left, you choose to angulate in order to tilt the board, and I choose to invert my front foot and evert my rear in order to do the same thing, I'm closer to the goal than you are, despite both of us tilting our boards. And your mode takes longer, on account of moving more parts in anticipation of, rather than as a byproduct of the edging/turning process. Which brings me to the next point. Overtly, the Bruce Lee 'be water' thing suggests flow. Which is nice. And damp. As I read it, he's cautioning against assuming too much about an opponent, and using those assumptions to establish a particular approach to the conflict. Instead, he's suggesting to (get this) 'become' the opponent, and defeat said opponent by exactly matching 'response' to 'power'. No more, no less. Flow isn't cause, it's effect. So the next time you ride, see what the snow and the board ask of you, rather than assuming a particular action/posture will deliver a particular outcome. If you're going to deconstruct your riding in the low energy context, minimise the floating variables by using the board on which you feel most comfortable while moving slowly. Preferably something with a radial sidecut, soft longitudinal flex, standard camber, and a sidecut in the 10m range. Glass is nice, but not required. If your clampy things wobble, tighten them down, or use something else. The idea is to identify, as best possible, which sensations accompany which outcomes, and then use that information for refinement. E.g., if you feel boot cuff before you feel sole contact while trying to turn, that's probably not a good thing. If you feel like you are generally on one foot or the other, but not both simultaneously, that's another clue. If you find that one particular muscle group heats up when you're doing very little, that's not appropriate. And so forth. It can be a lot to think about, because there's a lot going on. Until there isn't. And then you can relax.

Not so fast, hot rod. As you recall, the young Dr. M spent extensive time understanding and manipulating the analogs/workings of time itself. This sets the stage for his ability to manipulate the greater matter/energy system(s). While your assumption makes sense at face value, if you move to the high energy context before you have the means to manipulate that context, you simply develop coping mechanisms based on what you know and what you have. As the head of the Spartak tennis club once said " the worst thing you can do to a child is ask them to hit a ball with no technique, without first learning how to move." (or something to that effect). The greater point of 'time on hill' is to have the opportunity to sift and evaluate, not just to practice what you know. I've taken a lot of heat over the years from the 'smart people' for spending so much time riding slowly, on flat terrain. If you do it with focus, as Ingemar Stenmark used to on the runout of his training hill, you figure out which movements really matter at the micro level, and therefore how to most effectively manipulate the platform. If you cannot ride clean moving very slowly, without extra movements (see also, pedaling) odds are good you're going to have a problem further up the ladder. As Lonbordin noted earlier, I'm reasonably capable on one foot (see also, no pedaling). Part of that is practice, but most of that is equipment configuration. If you can ride a variety of turns and inputs on one foot with a relaxed posture, you've at least established that the back foot won't be needed to compensate for board behaviour once the context changes. There are any number of ways a rider can provide errant inputs to their board. Until you figure out what really matters, and what is merely ketchup/mustard, the board will have the capacity to ride you. Your board does exactly what you tell it to. To that end, make sure you really understand which inputs matter, and which ones don't. If it's not clear, ask. It's a very short list. It may not work at all for you, but one of my pole stars is the goal of accomplishing almost everything by doing practically nothing. In terms of energy expressed, to meet this goal the board must be powered up, and the body powered down. So if you're expending effort, and it's not improving things, you're going in the wrong direction. Thanks for the links.

And I have a known deviation in the tracking of my left knee that 'requires' a toe-in stance. I would not suggest anyone else do as I do, unless they are in a similar situation. Most trend toward slight splay, but that doesn't mean other options are incorrect; only odd. Preferred stance angle is a derivation of bone structure, foot support, riding philosophy, and sycophancy. If 1x is feeling a positive difference at parallel 50, he should explore that stance until he finds the practical limits as fit his goals.

No/maybe Not unless you like it that way. ->No, because 'doing the norm' is an exercise specifically designed to reduce postural complexity, and the negative impact that can have on the advanced beginner/intermediate rider and their desire to link clean arcs on relatively gentle terrain. This means full body lean, and full body lean takes up a lot of area, meanwhile requiring very little effort other than focus. ->Maybe, because technique often looks like something other than what it really is, and the execution can be readily mangled. In other words, you can look the part, but not play the part. ->If you like to exert yourself, then go for it. But don't believe for a minute that riding well in demanding context has to be an all-day grunt-fest. (though this might explain the sock funk you mentioned in another thread). E.G., On a good day, my physical exertion is a low hum in the back ground, and it's mostly a matter of focus to ensure the timing of select movement is sufficient for line choice. On a really good day, it's not easy to tell which is uphill, and which is downhill, as the pressure load underfoot is nearly constant through the arc, and the only external cues are the familiar trees trailside. But this is me, and me isn't you, nor should we be. Part of the difficulty in learning to ride well, is that when we learn at the low end, we're mostly learning large movements of large body parts with plenty of time and area in which to make mistakes. And then, on steeper terrain, that doesn't work on account of 'the maths'. Too much energy, not enough time. Solution? Find a way to undo/invert what you've already learned. Or become Dr Manhattan. ->With pants.<- Work within the system; become the system; rather trying to fight the system. Of course, that takes a different mindset, also different tactics. Letting go of what you know, what you do, who you are as an athlete is not easy. It is, however, one of the better ways to improve your game. If you take the time to watch highly effective athletes, you'll notice they move with an ease that suggests they have more time to get their work done than do their opponents. This is because they can get that job done with fewer discrete movements. Or their movements are less muscular, and therefore more accurate. Point being, if your means of riding is more 'complicated' than it needs to be, that complexity, regardless of how practiced, will limit your overall capacity. Particularly when the energy level is high, and time is short. So start by questioning why you ride the way you ride. Why do you make movement X, from posture Y. Is it because it's a direct line from A to B, or is it simply because someone you respect told you to do it that way? Are you trying to anchor the light parts in order to move/shove the heavy part, or has the heavy part become the tether for the light parts? Either way, part of the answer to your question can be found here:

Yet this reads like a statement of utility: Despite your considerable experience on a board, all that you’ve experienced is not universal. What I've typed to date is hardly conjecture, and to extend your reasoning, almost everything I’ve ever written or said about riding softboots should be discarded out of hand. As if it’s not possible to reach an understanding of a system or component thereof without ‘seat of the pants’ testing? Do I really need to test snowblades in order to form a conclusion you'll accept? To the point of my original question, I know that boards grip/perform better when they run true, and recognize the obvious place a plate holds in preventing torsional distortion for performance applications. My testing your plate at this time isn’t going to change that, nor is it going to change my understanding that if one can ‘work’ to avoid twisting a board in the absence of a plate, that rider will see a distinct benefit. Years ago, you spent enough time instructing to realize that eliminating excess movements found in the low momentum context can pay dividends in the high energy context. Given your recent, rather abrupt realization that your technique isn’t fully optimized, I thought the mechanics behind the prevalence of intentional twisting in snowboarding might be worth discussing. Probably not, as I’ve made distinct efforts (by way of boot modification), to reduce/eliminate board distortion. Have also spent an inordinate amount of time maneuvering at slow speeds with only one foot attached. So I’m reasonably aware of what’s going on between the board and snow; and which foot is doing what, and when. Your surprise discovery of what was going on under your feet pre-plate isn't that surprising. If you’re riding ‘current technology’, with metal laminate and some nose de-camber, those features mute feedback and smooth out some of the byproducts of pedaling while ‘in the cut’. It stands to reason that if you’re not noticing board twist while arcing, you’re probably not noticing it in a lower energy context either. The latter may be subtle, but the former is visible from the chairlift. Didn't say they were. Don't believe they are. Suggested they might find occasional use as something of a panacea. And their general use is trendy. (I looked it up). That’s certainly a good thing. Had a similar experience with my current set of snow tires. (But those are tools, not toys.) I hope you giggled a few times. It’s those periodic moments of discovery and inspiration that have kept me involved in the field for so many years. Now that you know how a rider can inadvertently cause a board to lose grip on hard snow (thanks to the plate), you’re in a much better position to regain it on a naked board. When you accomplish that, then you’ll really have something to think about. And maybe we’ll have something else to discuss. Of course, I’d still like to know why pedaling is viewed as a ‘necessary’ element of riding a board. Pontification on the existence/codification of pedaling is not quite the same as a well-founded explanation as to the mechanical principles involved. Is it: Platform width? Distance between the feet? Setback/offset/splay? Interface geometry? Millennials? Lack of imagination? A player to be named later? There has to be something, given that a board is essentially a wide ski, and it doesn’t appear anyone is promoting the twisting of skis on the long axis in the search for greater maneuverability/response/etc.

Accept the idea that the straight line isn't the fastest line. The fastest line will be the line whereby you dissipate the least amount of energy. Try not to be slow, before you try to be fast.

Right. I'm devoid of varied experience. Can't help but wonder how much more I might have accomplished by now if only I'd been more curious about things. Suspension systems as seen on DH bikes and other conveyances aren't input modifiers, and plates don't convert motion to heat. Again: I've got a salvage dive team on the case. Should know if they've found any revenants shortly.

Jack, I had a nice response typed up for your earlier post, but it seems to have vanished.

In context, my use of Jack's plate would serve only as entertainment. I would be entertaining his assumptions, and he would presumably be entertained by my riding 'new tech'. No argument on points a) and b). Those are already canon, though there may not be clear understanding as to why, or whether some of the effects of a plate can be had without. I.e., your statement regarding vibration may have less to do with vibration fatigue as one might find in early generation aluminum road bike frames, and more to do with how the neuromuscular system interprets and reacts to particular types of vibration. E.g., Isometric contraction deployed as a means of finding stability can generate considerable fatigue over a short span of time.

1. I am becoming a better rider, (and also a better skier), following a particular path if inquiry that others might find amusing. 2. Pedaling can be useful, but I've not found the need to make use of that particular action. Possibly because I prefer to put a little more effort into equipment configuration, and that diligence obviates the 'need' for pedaling. 3. I don't doubt that experienced riders would make a discovery as to their 'naked board' tendencies when riding an isocline. 4. If a rider isn't pedaling without a plate, that rider likely won't feel the need to pedal on a plate, assuming the board is otherwise well matched to their needs. 5. What has you thinking that I need to refine my biomechanics to work with a plate, and in the event they did need that refinement, why would a plate be a requirement? Hopefully it's not the errant assumption that if you do it, and other 'experienced' riders do it, then everyone must do it? 6. Not opposed to plates, not opposed to using one. Simply don't see the need at this time, and more to the point, whether or not I use a plate is not relevant to the question I asked at the outset. --- I'm familiar with the Allsop/Softride suspension beam. If memory serves, Pro rider Tom Schuler raced one for at least a season, and found great success, especially for criterium events. (Might have been someone else, but his name comes to mind) Probably would have done better in the marketplace if it didn't look so odd, and if someone hadn't nicknamed it the 'Beaver Lever'. I have no doubt that system can be used as a tool to develop a better spin. Alternately, one can get more than adequate feedback by riding on a partially inflated rear tire, spending time on training rollers, riding an FS frame with low air pressure in the rear shock, and also taking a thorough look into the articulations of the lower extremities, and then paying particular attention to foot support, cleat canting, cleat location, and seat location. All of which will have some effect on a rider's ability to spin with fluidity. A 'blocky' spin can be caused by simple lack of coordination, but also by the various muscle groups trying to do two conflicting tasks at the same time. Generally, there's more than one way to reach a particular goal. Sometimes it's different gear, sometimes it's doing a little more thinking. In the event it's not obvious, I prefer the latter, and in the event that's not obvious, it's worked out very well for both myself, and my clients. I agree that the video on my site is of poor quality. Forgive me for that, as it's what I had at the time. I have since posted excerpts of more recent footage to the forum on several occasions. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll provide a link.

You're mistaking adherence to a particular path of inquiry for resistance. Believe as you like, I've learned quite a bit along that path. Some of which you may find useful in time. Some of which you might already have. Isolation plates per se, aren't new, and one need not slavishly flog one about in order to comprehend their function or efficacy. Part of that 'deep analysis' you cite involves actually understanding how varied/various systems work in conjunction with biomechanics etc. I'd be more inclined to use one if/when 1. I can't extract any more performance out of myself, and/or a 'conventional' setup. 2. I see clear evidence that the use of a plate has advanced riding technique. Meanwhile, there's no point in adding weight and complexity to the system for mere entertainment.

Corey, To elaborate, be mindful of pivoting on the injured leg while going about your daily activities. The mechanics of so many of the movements we take for granted are invisible until injury, and it doesn't take much insult to inhibit recovery. Also, rethink your conditioning regime. Most joint stabilizing is reflexive, and you can make things a lot worse in a flash. I'd hedge more toward non-weight bearing, range of motion/mobility activities for the near term.

Given the option of adjustable metal v flat plastic, I'd definitely opt for the former.

How do you suppose it might appear different from extant footage? I thought you said you weren't going to fuse your ankles?

Indeed. Given that you (and others) find pedaling on a naked board useful , (and I don't), I'm looking for insight and practical answers as to why. Your experience/opinion is certainly a good data point as to preferences, but doesn't do much to address the mechanical underpinnings. Deflecting the question is, therefore, a 'dodge'. Regardless, thanks for the offer, but I need to devote my diminished hill time toward becoming a better rider, rather than following a trend(s) that might simply allow me to believe I'm a better rider.

FWIW, I've started plenty of lightweights on the dreadfully stiff CATEK WC without incident. Even with a flexy binding, if you're actively tugging on something, the board is seeing input. I'd suspect that if you had the full complement of cant/lift options available, and took the time to work the details, she'd be fine. She'll probably get plenty of wobble off the smaller contact area of the toe and heel blocks anyway. Also go with a booster strap rather than full velcro on the boots, and if it gets to that point, I can outline a means of further altering boot flex without affecting support.

Nice dodge.

Inward rear binding cant (and lift) will certainly make a static stance feel more comfortable, especially if the splay and/or stance width is excessive. However, it will generally inhibit board performance in actual use. As to the cuff canting, for the time being set for comfort while walking/standing with feet parallel, ride a bunch, and post your observations as to how you and your board perform over the next few outings.

RJ, Do you need just a heel lift, or both toe and heel? I rummaged in the parts bins and found a few of the toe/heel lift blocks I made in the 90's for the Burton/Ibex platform. You can see one of them mounted in the 'knee protection' thread.

I'm reasonably certain that I don't pedal my board when starting out, and most certainly don't pedal the 'support' ski when I depart from a one-footed position in similar circumstance. Further, I've noticed over the years that boards (of a given length) stiffer in torsion (but not in flexion) tend to be easier to maneuver in 'closer quarters'; most likely because they resist responding to errant twisting inputs, and therefore are less prone to compromising the more tenuous state of equilibrium that follows a lack of momentum. Further more, of the many times I've introduced enthusiasts to snowboarding from point zero, I've never suggested they pedal the board, nor have they exhibited much need to do so; and in fact find that the platform behaves more consistently when they specifically try not to. Certainly a plate will have an effect on a rider's inputs, intentional or otherwise. One has to wonder though, if some of the control issues associated with isoclines has more to do with the geometry/flex of a particular board as relates to rider weight and stance preference, and less to do with an inherent 'need' to pedal at slower speed. This: Supports this: But neither answers the question as to why pedaling in general should be necessary. That said, I've noticed that of the many softbooters I've been privileged to work with, those that feel a distinct need to pedal are configured on their boards in such a way as to require differential inputs. E.G., feet too far apart, and or insufficient binding setback. In this situation, pedaling is the required/accessible work-around. What if the problem is a reliance on pedaling, and the plate is simply making that more obvious? One of the greater challenges is the difficulty in accepting that the 'sliding device' will do amazing things if we don't actively prevent it from doing so. I.e., providing inputs which seem rational but are, in fact, merely habit; and for the most part, counterproductive.