Beckmann AG

Earlier in this thread you questioned the discussion and implementation of offset tuning as ‘academia’, having little practical value. That’s dismissive of RJ’s quest for knowledge and my encouragement of his pursuit, and does nothing to further the conversation. Why should you feel insulted when asked to justify your position? You’re correct in that the human body is adaptable. In some contexts, (such as lifting), adaptation may be logical. Adaptation in motion, particularly on a dynamic platform, consumes both muscle and time, both of which could be better used for riding, rather than accommodating equipment maladjustment. Adaptation in thought process requires an awareness and acceptance that there's usually more going on than 'what we know'. An enduring problem in alpinesport is the largely incomplete understanding of how equipment interferes with athletic movement. Once the obstacles are removed, the actions required to ride well are incredibly simple, in stark contrast to most of what is viewed as ‘proper’ technique, that often being an ad hoc series of work-arounds. Doesn’t matter how intelligent the athlete or coach; if they can’t see the entire picture, they might as well be looking at an empty frame. I asked a year or two ago if you’d ever executed the alignment work on your race car; a question that never got answered. I asked, because there are a few similarities between the ‘alignment’ of a rider to their board, and the alignment of the wheels to the chassis. If you understand the benefit of tenths of a degree in one context, odds are that knowledge will transfer to another. If you’ve not ‘done the research’, that’s fine, but speaking as though you have isn’t helping the cause, nor is disparaging the efforts of those who pursue additional learning. You’re in a notable position to influence rider development. As such, it’s reasonable to suggest you to speak from a position of practical certainty, rather than opinion/consensus/casual observation.

Not sure on the TD3 (metric?), but the thread on the TD1 (or at least a few of mine) are 1/4-28. Or they were last I checked. Also, TD3 uses a cross bolt as bail pivot, whereas the 1 and 2 use shoulder bolts. TD2 lugs should work, assuming they're available?

Unspeakable things. And more suspension tuning.

So...Back to this:

How did you arrive at that statement? 'Pure academia for the sake of academia' suggests the discussion of esoteric information out of reach of the common man. When it comes to game improvement, boot/binding configuration is the lowest of the hanging fruit. Can you even imagine purchasing decisions based on causal links, rather than blind hope, hyperbole and peer pressure? Do you know with certainty that RJ isn't capable of, interested in, or already on the path to equipment alteration? Is your skepticism indicative of your research into efficacy, or reflective of your grasp of the principles involved? New products hit the market when a need is realized. That involves questions and informed discussion. Given the complaints related to UPZ fitment to certain bindings, it seems a greater understanding of the problem and it's effects might lead to more equipment choices. Start with geometry, using the contact point of your heel and that of the first met head of your lead foot as end points. Then factor in both the need to balance leverage ratios with respect to the long board axis, and the part where, in a 'centered' posture more pressure may be expressed through the heel than ball of foot Then run through some controlled riding scenarios to see if, in your case, offset is an actual concern. E.G., I tend to do a lot of initial testing using only the front binding. You may find, that for your particular physicality, the exaggerated internal ramp of the UPZ demands a 'illogical' offset in order for the board to handle with neutrality. Much of this stuff is iterative, in that a change in binding configuration can allow a better understanding of athletic movement, which then prompts a smaller change in binding configuration, and so on. It's a tightening spiral with a practical endpoint. If you see improvement, but run out of adjustment range before running out of curiosity, get in touch.

If you can't tell any difference with the new footbeds, then your feet are structurally perfect, the footbeds are incomplete, or the remaining variables are still too far out of range. Or some combination thereof. The 'high arch' comment suggests that your foot may be more mobile to the lateral side, in which case you may need additional posting under the 5th met head in order to properly stabilize your foots. The comment on the 'parallel', 'toe out' relationship of the boots while standing suggest an element of 'twist' somewhere in your leggish hardware. Both of which indicate that your situation is not, as previously stated, 'normal'. If you ride better with straps loose, it's most likely that the direct connection is translating unintentional and dissonant commands from you to the board. Part of this could be related to the issues noted above, and part could be that you're swatting flies with a hammer. Regardless, good to hear you're making progress. Thanks for the update.

Difficulty with turn initiation generally stems from issues with turn completion. That most often has to do with how you're standing on the board, and the beta that put you there. Uncertain footing is related. If you can post a short clip of your riding to this thread, or send a link via PM, that will save a lot of guessing as to what you're doing, and what to do next.

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." -Werner Heisenberg

There was another thread recently that referenced (in yet another older thread; might have been one of yours?)some of the hows and whys of offset. In short: As a friend pointed out recently: A snowboard is a violin, not a piano. The ball of the foot and the contact center of the heel bone are the primary points from which you can direct inputs to the board. It follows then that moving those points one way or the other will change the nature of the command signal sent to the board, as well as the return response quantifying what took place as a result of that input. Consider that some feet have proportionally longer arches, and some have proportionally longer toes. In each case, centering the boot shell geometrically will result in sub-optimal signal routing. if the board 'sees' pressure/pressure distribution as the primary control input, and if the board can't discern between plantar foot pressure and shell leverage as a source of pressure, then offset can have a significant influence on how the board handles, and how a rider can manipulate that board. For the average novice on softies, on low-end sloppy equipment, 1 cm of toe/heel offset can be a game changer. Given that hard shell boots and bindings are much more responsive, it follows that changes in offset of much smaller increments in hardboots can be revelatory. Some riders reach a certain point of accomplishment, find bliss, and desire no further exploration. Others realize that there is always more over the horizon. The latter class can take a linear measure, extrapolate effect based on past experience and theory, and make the informed decision to find a boot/binding configuration better suited to their geometric needs and athletic goals.

Presumably he's referring to any hardware securing the cuff to the scafo along the spine, which is above the heel. If those Langes fit, and you can modify them, there's no practical reason why your son can't prosper with them, provided his stance is configured properly.

On the boots I've seen, most of the carbon, (or the appearance of carbon) is in the cuff, not the shell. The lower part of the boot is 'just' plastic. Making the shell out of actual carbon laminate would likely be cost prohibitive for a mass market production boot. Depending on the layup, fiber orientation, and epoxy, one could probably distort a carbon shell, but not to the extent you can with plastic. Further, if your bare supported foot is not hitting plastic in the empty shell, you can probably thin the liner in select areas with a grinder, or if it's too loose in select places, apply layers of elastic duct tape to the liner. ...so if you look closely, you may find that the upper latch anchor can be rotated 180 degrees for more/less forward lean. Alternately, you could add a spoiler wedge to the cuff. Should be able to cadge one of those from most any ski shop.

He's mistaken. Or lazy. Perhaps both. ->Statement qualified by the understanding that I've not had occasion to punch every iteration of this year's plastic, but have punched previous Backlands to good effect.

...Because you are. 1. You're generally front foot biased. 2. Your edge change mechanics can be characterized as 'secure edge, rotate torso, release edge, pivot board, try to secure edge'. 3. Your transitions involve up-unweighting. 4. None of the above are advisable for where you are at in your skill development; nor for the terrain, or the predominant turn size. 5. All of them will produce or contribute to skid. Resolve the above and your sliding should subside. Good luck winnowing.

Snowboarding can be described as creating/maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium. Akin to walking. Learning to walk is organic, involves mistakes, bumps and bruises. Learn to walk, and you can go places, free yourself, and maybe impress a few people. Learning to ride alpine is organic, involves mistakes, bumps, and bruises. Learn to ride alpine, and you can go places, free yourself, and maybe impress a few people. A significant difference, is that when you learn to walk, it doesn’t matter who you impress, because your peer group is enormous, and since everyone is doing it, nobody really cares what you have on or under your feet. Except for the fetishists. Alpine snowboarding is a reasonably small niche, and within that niche it’s a challenge to both belong, and at the same time, stand out. The easiest way to resolve that challenge is to buy new gear. Preferably gear that’s hard to come by. While that advances the personal cause, that’s not advancing the sport. As Nils points out, newer boards can allow a rider to achieve a particular result with less effort; less skill. While that can can certainly facilitate enjoyment and encourage/sustain participation, that’s not ‘advancing’ the sport either. In fact, if one significantly reduces the skill required for a particular activity, that activity will no longer be challenging, will lose it’s allure, and in the process, participation and vitality. Advancing a sport requires pushing the limits of what is currently possible in terms of athletic movement within set boundaries. Which sounds a lot like riding on ‘ancient’ gear: An athlete pushing their limits against assumed limitations. For the most part, making the argument that newer gear is better for the sport than older gear is a lot like saying if you want to help a toddler walk better, buy them a new floor, and make sure they can’t tip over.

Back when I was paying more attention, it seemed like most of the coaches relied on quantity of training exposure, rather than quality, or examining needs specific to the particular athletes. Time was cheaper then, and spending money (particularly when it's not your own) is easier in the near term than doing the hard work of cultivating/fostering/enhancing athletic movement. The author (and Plaschy) make some good points. One of the better tennis coaches once said that the worst thing you could do to a young athlete was let them swing at a ball before they knew how to move about with a racquet. Similarly, there's little gained by putting a skier in a course when they can barely ski to the level required. Unfortunately, the trend in the ski industry is to ignore the obvious while clinging to self-delusion.

Intended use of my oxygen/ acetylene supply will empty the bottles and I have to buy more. My local Airgas distributor more or less guarantees the product will work as intended, but both parties assume (and rightly so) that it's a consumable. Granted, I'm usually producing something of value, and figure the cost into the outcome. Might not be obvious, or desirable, but the performance athlete is the only part of the scenario that shouldn't be considered disposable. Skis, boots, poles, and clothing etc., are all expendable, and will have varying lifespan depending on how they are applied to the job. Besides which, if he and others are consuming skis at a steady rate, isn't that supporting the manufacturers, isn't that advancing the sport, and isn't that worth the cost? ->Skis and rockets both serve only to launch and guide payload. By comparison, the skis are free.

A little excessive, but thanks. Hopefully we can connect again and 'fix stuff without actually fixing stuff'. ->Was speaking with a friend on the topic the other day, and they pointed out that one key to success is taking joy in the otherwise mundane chore of relegating and resolving the thousand minor details; striking a balance between the party and the housekeeping.

^ Unless you've got that mill dedicated to only one job, you have got to get at least a z-axis feed. (Dramatically changed my work practice). Also more shop photos.

Truth to Powe'er: The fact that you have such good recall suggests otherwise. And I’m pleased that you found enduring value in something I said years ago. ->Although you left out our discussion on Detroit Diesel superchargers? Awareness is an origin, but as you realize, there’s often a vast space between an awareness, and a successful utilization of that awareness toward an eventual solution. And that space is usually littered with obstructions. Sometimes it’s motivation, sometimes mechanical, sometimes a conflict of identity, etc. More often than not there is a ‘simple’ reason why we can’t do what we want how we want. Recognizing and dealing with that reason can be difficult, and is rarely ‘sexy’. That you recognize your capacity for improvement, the elements holding you back, and also a tentative path toward that goal, is a good omen for your future self. Ignorance, with or without intent, is rarely the way to progress.

Dan, Could be the back boot is contributing, but also possible that the front boot/binding isn't optimized. So if the inputs from the front foot/lower leg are insufficient, or aren't properly translated through the boot shell (for whatever the reason) the front leg will straighten as 'last chance' maneuver to get some edge bite. Followed/augmented by folding at the waist. If you have not already done so, review the parts of my setup process dealing with the front binding, and see if you are anywhere near 'centered and neutral', in terms of where your knee falls across the width of the board, and also how you bear weight upon your front foot at that time. And of course, test your theory on the locked rear cuff. Forward lean: The short answer is that the forward lean should be set to support, but not impose an effective relationship between the lower leg and foot. The complicated answer is that 'effective' may vary from one foot to the other, based on other variables, and also how you choose to ride. I've often found it helpful to set the front boot forward lean, then leave the rear cuff unlocked for awhile to determine what is and is not an effective desirable range of motion. Not a dumb question. Stand in bare feet at your chosen stance width, upright and comfortable. Without thinking about it much, see what kind of action is required in the lower extremities in order to 'topple' your upper body in one direction or the other. You will most likely do something similar to what you envision, though there will probably be other things moving slightly as well. Once you have an answer, do the same thing in your empty boot shells on the bindings, then repeat with the liners in and boots buckled. Odds are good that each stage will reveal obstacles either in terms of understanding, or geometry/plastic. Remove as many obstacles as possible in sequence, then try your solution on a gentle slope. What you are trying to do, in simple terms, is generate a 'whole body' lean angle into the turn, by disrupting, at the ground level, the means by which that lean angle is prevented. Sort of like; if you swing a ball in a circle on a string, you produce tangential movement by releasing your fingers from the string, while the momentum of the ball does the rest. Your feet/ankles being the means of release.

The fittest rower on the planet will experience quad burn if they 'do it wrong'. Their fitness will simply delay considerably the point at which quad burn will interfere with their ability to participate. The point I'll fail to make, is that even if your frequent workouts are, (as stated), only forty feet in length, as a dedicated oarsman you have fitness sufficient to ride well.

Helpful. In both photos, your torso is cantilevered ahead of your hips, which means any resultant shock loads incurred will be absorbed to a greater extent with muscle than with skeletal structure. Some forward angle is expected, and normal. The problem is it doesn't take too much angular change ahead of 'safe' to predispose oneself to injury, given the sometimes unexpected load spikes. To illustrate this point, mimic the posture from either photo indoors, using the consistent 9.8m/s/s as a consistent load. See how long you can stand there without discomfort, than flex your knees up and down a few times to generate slight shock loading (without altering the rest of your posture) and see what happens. OR maybe just standing there will be enough. In the heelside photo, your knee flexion is disproportionately uneven, and it appears the center of your front knee is offset somewhat toward the heelside edge. This suggests that much of your heelside edge tilt is derived by moving your center into the turn, rather than originating at the feet and/or knees. In this situation, in order to move the center into the turn without fully toppling at turn entry, it's necessary to counterbalance that movement with an opposite movement of the shoulders. That arrangement moves you from skeletal to muscular support, and that will predispose you to back injury in certain circumstances. Worth noting that in both photos you appear 'normal'. Something else to consider is that for many riders, the greater loads are seen later in the turn, when the joints are already close to full flexion. As such, there aren't too many options to 'leak' excess energy from the system, other than through structural deformation of the surface, or the rider. As you continue with your riding, pay attention to both postural effect, and also consider that the greater amount of joint flexion should take place when loads are lowest, and the lesser amount of joint flexion should take place when loads are highest. And that the flexion/extension process should be progressive, rather than sudden/static. HInt: It's pyrite.

Might, might not. If you have normal range of motion out of the ankle joints, then using BTS v riding with cuffs locked might help. On the other hand, if you ride with the boots softened to allow for greater range, that can present other problems. Specifically, change in cuff contact pressure is a means for the brain to sense what's happening, and to act accordingly. If the boots are too soft, it's possible to get too far 'over the line' toward some form of high stress loading before you realize, (on the subconscious level) what's happening, and by the time you do, it's too late for evasive maneuvering. E.g., while pursuing a particular line of inquiry last winter, I was riding one session on good snow with my boot flex controls in an excessively slack arrangement. At some point I did something that made walking awkward and painful for the next few weeks, and required additional lumbar support in the car. As a general rule, the posture one adopts in the athletic context serves a purpose. Sometimes it's discretionary/intentional, and sometimes it's necessary/reflexive. The thing for you to consider/evaluate is whether or not your boots are restricting you from finding a 'better' posture, or are actively preventing you from adopting one worse. Have you tried riding with the front cuff locked, and the rear cuff in walk? (As a point of interest, are you trying to adopt a lower COG out of practical need, or as a perceived means of skill development? ) To avoid injury, one should account for how system one (the physical structure) is best loaded, and then understand under what circumstances in system two (the hardbooting context) that structure can be damaged. ->Worth noting that washing lots of dishes in bare feet can lead to back problems. Further, worth bearing in mind that just because something is commonplace, the statistical 'normality' doesn't make it 'right'. That most riders ride with a particular posture has more to do with how niche activities propagate, and less to do with what is and is not appropriate from the structural standpoint. ->Galmarini and Ligety have both suffered back injury, and damage to their careers, by pursuing what seemed logical in context, but was rather short-sighted from the bio-mechanical standpoint. Stretching is a symptomatic treatment. There are reasons why muscles get tight, and once you figure out why a particular group is affected, you can take steps to actually resolve the issue. As a side note, cleat location and seat location can both contribute to chronically tight hamstrings while or after cycling. Along with lending too much credence to particular bike fit gurus on youtube. When you say you're 'inflexible', is that based primarily on hamstring/leg, lower back issues, or does that pertain to the rest of your body as well?