Beckmann AG

Thanks Terry. Glad the material helped your riding.

Looks like progress. Nice work. It's not covid. But that's a discussion for later.

Conjecture is guessing. I'm not guessing. The system, as described and as I understand the presentation, will 'tell' you 'what is'. It will not, however, tell you 'why is', at least not in the kind of mechanical terms that will serve to remove actual obstacles to progress. For instance: Balance on skis is a lot more than where you are front to back. If a skier trends toward a 'back of center' location (as many do) there will be several distinct reasons for that. Simply reminding that skier to 'get forward', or to feel contact at the fronts of their shins, or the balls of their feet, does nothing to resolve why they were back of center in the first place. What it does do, is encourage that skier to adopt a contrived posture that fits a particular visual mold, one that has been widely accepted as a mark of 'good skiing'. Having more data on what's going on underfoot, being on skis or snowboard, is a good thing. The problem comes in how you make use of that data. If you want to make yourself look like what consensus says is a good rider, then filtering the data toward that goal will most likely get you there. I suspect, however that you'd prefer to 'know' definitively what's going on under your feet, and would like to overlay that on your Strava map, to see how and when things were changing. That kind of information will be useful in the 'right hands'.

I don't believe my previous post is arguing against strength or fitness. Rather, pointing out that going after strength before technique can slow the acquisition of the things you want, meanwhile anchoring the things you don't. Of course, if one wants to work harder at a particular activity than necessary, then getting strong is a prerequisite, and that's ok.

Have not. Closest was the use of a digital gait analysis unit for boot ramp tweaking back around '97. Would you like an opinion on efficacy?

So… I did a related experiment. Mine took a slightly different path, in that I did no conditioning at all for about the same number of years. -> The result being a reduction in quad burn. <- And my game has improved markedly. Hard to imagine, right? The project began by accident, when a particularly busy summer left no time for training. Regardless, I had no muscle fatigue issues working my usual ski school schedule, nor did I feel the need to stop frequently while free riding. Much of this had to do with previous efforts made to optimize my relationship to my board. Part of it had to do with an emphasis on using muscle as a means of guidance/control, rather than as a structural support system. Part of it had to do with questioning why I did what I did the way I did, and was there a better way. E.g., did each joint articulation serve it's highest purpose, or was I doing something out of expediency/habit, etc. And part of it had to do with correlating cause and effect across multiple platforms. All of which continued to evolve as the seasons progressed. In the absence of a muscular ‘buffer’, daily r&d came down to ‘find a better way to ride’, or ‘stop riding’. I don’t recommend the practice of riding without a certain level of fitness to the general public for various reasons, perhaps the most important being a predisposition toward injury for the less diligent. For instance, I was very careful not to ‘ride myself into a corner’, with brute force the only exit strategy. That itself is not the kind of thing one can do until they’re in the contemplative/meditative stage of development; where concerns of balance, edge grip, and speed control are essentially non-issues. In short, removing ‘fitness’ from the picture, as a means of untangling technique and gear configuration is hard to beat. The more fitness/strength you bring to bear on a technique-weighted activity, the longer you can fake it without realizing you’re faking it. Meanwhile you’re entrenching non-optimal movement patterns/tactics, which ultimately makes it harder to advance/refine your technique. TL;DR: learn to drive and work out the handling geometry with a small engine, then add PS; rather than stuffing a big engine/novice driver into a marginal chassis. --- Pat, If you’d like to resolve the quad burn on skis, Pm me a good phone # and we can discuss if you like.

Figure about 45 to an hour, depending on weather. Whether or not you have to avoid moose and deer.

^What he said. Plow truck just went by. What's your ETA this season?

It seems every year someone wonders aloud why hardboot snowboarding remains an outlier. Threads like this one provide some insight into that question.

Perception is reality. Until it's not. As mentioned previously, isocline plates are filters that affect the inputs/feedback between rider and board. By cancelling errant inputs from the rider, they allow the board to do what it should be doing, which is to say, describing an arc in the snow without undue interruption. If a rider cannot provide dissonant torsional inputs to the topsheet of the board, or if those inputs are muted to the extent the time frame is sufficiently shifted, the board is better able to pursue it's destiny. That feels much smoother; and smoother requires explanation using what's 'known'. There's an interesting parallel between the effect of a plate, and the effect of proper bike fit, vis a vis the 'need' for most to ride full suspension mtn bikes . But that's another story for another day.

In the Star Wars® Riglet® universe, does Greedo® scoot first? --- 'Kids having fun' is just deflection. I mean, who could object to that? The Riglet® program allows Burton to reduce differentiation between the activity and the brand without seeming sinister. Joe Camel getting his nose under the kids table, so to speak.

But not exactly thriving. Failure to thrive can have one, or many causes. The Ngorongoro crater, which formed when a giant volcano exploded and collapsed on itself some two to three million years ago, is 610 m (2,000 ft) deep and its floor covers 260 km2 (100 sq mi).[5] Estimates of the height of the original volcano range from fifteen to nineteen thousand feet (4500 to 5800 metres) high.[8][9] A side effect of this enclosure is that the population of Ngorongoro lions is significantly inbred, with many genetic problems passed from generation to generation. This is due to the very small amount of new bloodlines that enter the local gene pool, as very few migrating male lions enter the crater from the outside. Those who do enter the crater are often prevented from contributing to the gene pool by the crater's male lions, who, because of their large size (the result of an abundant and constant food source), easily expel any outside competitors.

Guy. NIce heelside.

Where? What is your perception of pressure application? Front foot, rear foot, both feet? Does that mean you moved both out from a centralized location, or did you move both axles out and move the plate rearward? Being 'balanced on both feet' may well be imparting too much bend to the front end of the board. In general, if a board pivots or skids without you kicking it around, it's because you're bending it unevenly. Given that your boots have an underslung heel, and that the board is hyper to the heelside, the logical place to start is to tweak your offset. From the photos you look biased to the heel side.

Deeluxe is using same/similar molds, but different liners. One of the chief benefits of the heat moldable liners in contemporary boots is the ability to get closer to a correct shell fit without modification. Odds are good that unless you sized your originals by removing the liner and shell fitting, they were sized one size too large to accommodate the extra liner bulk. The implication being that if you did not shell fit your originals, used a the Zip for a better fit, then ordered the same size for your new boots, your new boots are one size too large. Hopefully not.

I think he's referring to footbeds made by someone other than myself. David, I'm usually at the mountain Mondays and Tuesdays, depending on my regular work schedule.

Edited that post to include links to the 'titles' in question. Apollogies for any confusion.

Sounds like your shells are too large. My main shop is near Sugarloaf, my satellite shop is near UNH. Or maybe it's vice-versa.

I'd have thought it reasonably clear that I was referring to the operating principles behind cars and snowboards, et al, not the oft-competing design challenges posed by market forces, regulation, materials, integration of new technology, etc. The latter being another topic entirely. From Wikipedia: "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." E.G., "There are numerous paradigm shifts still ongoing. See Madd 158, metal boards, Kessler sidecut/decamber, Donek Secret construction, Thirst sidecut/construction, etc." These are not paradigm shifts, but distractions from the original discussion. The focus of my earlier statements had to do with handling, how handling can be affected by attention to detail. If one understands systems, one is in a better place to affect those systems. A system in one context can be understood by studying a similar system in another context. E.g., Engine output is governed by a data map and feedback system. Your ability to ride is governed by a data map and feedback system. Including or excluding considerations from the programming will influence range and potential.

Edited the above for clarity. --- If the reversed 80/20 isn't known or assumed, it should be. Warren Witherell proposed the reversed 80/20 in either ‘How the Racists Ski’, or ‘The Apathetic Skier’. Probably the latter. Though I disagree with some of his findings pertaining to canting, heel lift and knee position, I’ve found his 80/20 proposition to be fairly solid in practice, assuming one uses it as a guiding principle, rather than an absolute goal. Worth noting that sometimes the last 20% change for 80% gain isn’t a change to the equipment, it’s a change in how you choose to view a particular situation. Also worth noting that as handling is affected by ‘alignment’ on both platforms, and that both platforms can be operated with sub optimal ‘alignment’, the car analogy is not a ‘straw man’. Further, neither cars nor snowboards are complicated once you take the time to understand their workings. Persisting with that mindset is limiting. The system that regulates equilibrium is sensitive to finer increments of change. However, within the context of hardboots, it's not worth pursuing. It's that 'point of diminished return' thing, directly related to the other materials contained within the boot construct. Point being, if you recognize the limitations of the system (and the individual parts of that system), and tune to the 'best possible' resolution, you get some interesting results. If you don't care to do that, understand that you may never reach your athletic potential.

"...Nay, it is; I know not "seems." --W.S.:H Lowering the rear binding angle will magnify the leveraging inputs from your rear boot. The greater magnitude has to fit through a smaller aperture with respect to time, which means your timing has to be more precise. As it it, you're late, and therefore have to cheat the remainder of the turn initiation with minor drift/skid. So the board can't 'lock in' as it does to the heel side. In the short term, soften the flex on the rear boot, and come in earlier than you think possible with that knee/foot combination.

It is. And just as arbitrary as centering ones bindings on the insert pattern and assuming the job is complete. Geometry is, however, a start and point of reference. “Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it” ― Flannery O' Connor, Wise Blood ( Also useful as a guiding principle toward how one moves over snow.) It can, and will. However, it's better when the process of riding is the process of equilibrium, rather than the two being separate goals. You can certainly operate your car with a partially deflated tire on one corner, if expediency demands, but you wouldn't do so on purpose. Why would you, should you do any differently on a snowboard?

Hard to see the game when you're on the tailgate, not in the ballpark. Consider that your particular frame might require a net boot board angle of +2 front, and +8 rear. Your boots have a built in angle of 10, and the shells have only so much range before they lock up. In order to stand comfortably at rest, you'll have to set your binding toe and heel lift to resolve cuff interference, which mitigates front foot ramp, but increases rear foot ramp. Given the nature of the inclined plane, your weight distribution will always be skewed, which means you're spending significant time reacting, rather than riding. This effect being more dramatic as the incline increases. Sound familiar? A classmate skied XC at Nagano. I asked what most of the athletes were using for foot support. "Not much" he said. Realized it's not so much that top athletes become top athletes by tuning their interface, it's that their conformation doesn't require much tuning, which allows them to become top athletes. The rest of us walk a 'rougher' path. Another friend ( Shocker! I have more than one) recently did a study correlating amount of pronation to instructor certification level at a major western resort. No surprise; inverse relationship.

Understandable. However, the 80/20 rule as applied to alpine skiing and snowboarding runs in reverse, whereby the first 80% change (removal of 80% equipment related obstacles) allows the athlete to discover/uncover the first 20% of their potential. That 20% gain opens the door for further athletic insight, which spurs the iterative process toward the 80% gain. One thing to remember is that a gliding board is 'live' and responds to whatever inputs you provide. Intentional or otherwise. If you don't take the time to resolve that first 80% of equipment configuration, it's a fine line between you riding the board, and the board riding you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Consider that: The sidecut and flex pattern determine the general displacement capacity of the board with regard to time, in which case they're reflective of HP and torque. The boot (shell and liner) is the cockpit, which explains how an accomplished rider can function in a boot a little too large or too small, just as a good driver can make do from one car to the next. In each case the control surfaces might not be 'comfortable' to the rider/driver, but the locations and functions are generally familiar across platforms, so it's largely a matter of adjusting 'reach', timing and magnitude of input. Front binding offset and setback are analogous to toe and caster angle. Offset to one side, and the board will be more responsive in that direction, as though your wheels were toed-out. The board/car will tend to track toward whichever side has more 'bite'. This will be particularly noticeable on tricky/inconsistent surfaces, where the operator will be constantly acting/reacting to inconsistency. Similarly, if you have too much or too little setback, the board will either resist turning, or be hyper/nervous. If you take the time to 'tune' the analogous front end on a snowboard, you get to spend more time exploring/manipulating the handling characteristics, and less time compensating. I've driven cars that were way out of alignment, aligned professionally 'within range', and then aligned that same vehicle myself to the exact specification. That last tenth takes some time, which is why most don't go there. The most obvious and immediate gain is a reduction in driver fatigue. I concur that 'range at rest' is a valid starting point, but it's only a start. Once in motion that range can and will be affected by board backfeed, whether you realize it or not. This is one of the reasons why a softbooter might demonstrate knee flexion at rest, but cannot do the same while riding. Similarly, why the majority of hardbooters spend so much time in a flexed, muscular posture, rather than a stacked, structural posture. Lift, cant, offset, setback, stance width, boot flex etc. all effect what the board 'sees' from the rider. What the board sees determines how the board reacts, and how the board reacts determines rider movement options. Given that you can't 'step off' while in motion, the primary goal of comprehensive boot binding configuration is to reduce, as much as possible, biased/unintentional inputs. The more sensitive the chassis, the finer the resolution required.

Recent project involved increasing the rear binding heel lift to the extent I had no real shin contact while 'at rest'. Meanwhile lowered the internal ramp to maintain the original 9 degree total (7 on binding, 2 on Zeppa). Interesting results. Can't speak to the Denver options, but if you get back to Aspen, Eric is a zip dealer.