Beckmann AG

In light of the board wandering about in search of a home, I propose Iambic pentameter for the essay. What about that set of ersatz danglies under your Daihatsu?

Are we using the term 'boot board' correctly? Typically, the boot board ( integral to the shell mold, or as a separate component) establishes the ramp of a boot, though from your description the MS BB could be used to flip Japancakes? Certainly has a spatulate form. Howdy 'Half Tiresias'... Given your penchant for wearing the nose and mustache on the inside of the goggles...

'B' shell: +/- 10 degrees, removable hard foam bootboard.

'Suitable' depends on what one asks of their equipment. If you can't tune your ramp, and don't have access to other options, then by default what you have is suitable. If you can tune your ramp, then accepting 11 degrees as appropriate is absurd. It's not like a bunch of boot designers got together in the early 90's and compared data from 50 years of hardboot development before building molds around a standard step-in module. More likely, it was a matter of prioritizing market demand for a convenience feature over something that would be overlooked by the average consumer. If you have access to a band saw, (or an outdoor power equipment dealer), a minimal investment will provide material for off-season experimentation. Might be you already have what you need. Might be you find something significantly better. Edit: To clarify, you can use the bandsaw to make a set of wedges representing the ramp you have, or the ramp you think you want, so as to test one against the other. (Not as a means of sawing the shell in half to see what's inside). Similarly, these plastic felling wedges measure out at +/-4.8 degrees, in the event you don't have access to, or proficiency with power tools.

In simpler terms, internal ramp change will affect plantar pressure distribution, while external ramp change will affect both pressure distribution and leverage. Meanwhile, both internal and external ramp will affect the fore/aft relationship of the center of mass ( with respect to the long axis of the board, depending on binding angles) during flexion/extension. This, in turn, will affect overall pressure distribution along the length of the board. If you have additional questions, I'll be on the monkey bars. Will trade additional beta for that packet of Pop Rocks you hide under the Snoopy thermos in your lunch box. Correct. 'Ideal' ramp angle will vary from athlete to athlete, depending on limb segment length, etc., and what works for me probably won't work for you, regardless of preferences for one 'technique' over another. That said, analogous study suggests 4-5 degrees as a reasonable starting point, in part because that puts you in tuning range using available bindings (external) and Gorilla tape (internal). Haven't had a chance to pull and measure the bootboard from a pair of Full Tilt boots, but I suspect they're lower than 7-8, and should take well to modification.

World Cup? Water Closet? Wench Cafeteria? Werewolf Convention? Warlock Cemetery? Wildling Congress? If you accept that the primary inputs to your board are the pressure applied perpendicular to the topsheet, and the tilt of the board relative to the snow; It follows that the pressure applied through the soles of your feet should be largely independent of the leverage as applied through the boot cuff. And vice verso. If 11+ degrees of ramp in the boot is too much, and you resolve (through some ingenious device), that what you really need is +2 degrees net at the front boot, and +9 degrees net at the rear ('net' being boot on binding). ->As this amount of ramp will allow you to 1) stand evenly weighted without bodily contrivance, and 2) allow your center of mass to remain centered along the length of the board when you flex and extend your legs within a reasonable and comfortable range, thereby providing superiour grip and agility. That means you'd have to use a binding with 9 degrees of toe lift at the front. ->Good luck finding one of those. ->Even if you swiped the single 9 degree base disc known to exist, you'd have no adjustment left for canting. ->A 9 degree toe lift would put the boot cuff back of vertical (which more or less locks your front leg), unless you seriously advance the forward lean. At which point you've used up much of the forward flex inherent to the boot, and probably altered the nature of the remaining flex. If you don't advance the forward lean, your (locked) front knee is probably going to be offset toward the heel edge of the board, which means the toe/heel leverage ratio is biased to one side, and the board will probably be twisted while turning. To get 9 degrees total at the rear foot, you'd have to use a two degree toe lift. Again, your boot cuff would be in the way, (too much leverage) or you'd compromise available flex. Also, two degree toe lifts purchased where? And think of the ridicule... If you can't change the internal ramp, you either have to convince yourself that 'too much' is fine, or tilt the bindings (somehow) and face a leverage/ flex problem. Probably both. There are other considerations, but it's time for recess.

Thoughts: 1) Don’t believe everything you read on line. 2)The point isn’t to have a ‘flat’ front foot. The point is to attenuate that obscene amount of ramp such that you can bear weight evenly/selectively on the entirety of both feet without twisting yourself into a wad of taffy. ->Depending on your skeletal structure and desired outcome, that may be anywhere from negative 1 to plus 3 degrees (net) at the front foot, and 7 to 10 plus (net) at the rear. 3) Technique is a byproduct/outgrowth of interface. If your interface numbers are excessive, odds are good your technique will be similarly excessive. E.g., ‘heelside toilet zombie’. 4) Small changes (tenths of a degree) can make a significant difference if you’re close to the target, whereas larger changes (full degree or multiples thereof) can make almost no difference when you’re off the mark. 5)Internal and external ramp changes are not interchangeable. 6) Front boot internal ramp and rear boot internal ramp may need to be different in order to get the desired effect. 7) Front boot ramp and rear boot ramp serve distinct purpose, and each will either contribute to, or impair range of motion at the hips, knees and ankles, especially when the board is on edge and loaded. #8) Binding toe and heel lift should be used to support an effective stance, rather than be used to make a wider stance more comfortable. 9) To some extent, the more accurate your ramp configuration, the less flex you’ll probably need in your boots. 10) Points 1-10 are likely moot. From memory, the Deeluxe Indy, size 8 measured around +/- 10. The amount of heel elevation in a pair of shoes is usually related to the intended use of those shoes, and the postures they should 'support'. Which is one reason why wildland firefighter's boots have more heel height than indoor soccer shoes. Different 'work' requires different postures, requires different heel heights. Otherwise injury.

If you put aside the manifold sub-genres, and go back to the origins of riding natural terrain without contrivance, you'll find that manner of softbooting (E.g., https://youtu.be/5IoTeuWOQb8?t=87 ) remarkably similar to alpine skiing on similar terrain, in the era prior to plastic boots. By the same token, hardbooting resembles skiing 'post plastic'. For the most part stilted, jerky and awkward. ->With the obvious exception of those athletes who happen to naturally mesh harmoniously with the limitations of plastic geometry, or those able to mechanically resolve the obstacles inherent to excess leverage. (If you compare telemark skiing in the era of the Merrill Supercomp to what followed, you'll see similar tendencies of movement). The sensation of a carved turn, I.e., a 'positive' and elastic change of direction, is available, to greater or lesser extent, on many platforms. How you stand on that platform will have a bearing on how you perceive the action, but the interpretation doesn't change the nature of the action itself. Probably operating at the level of simple perception, in conjunction with their own experience. If the observer is accustomed to riding the typical snowboard, (which can't be too fast by nature of design), they'll wonder how something obviously different will perform. For instance, a Moto Gp bike goes fast, and looks fast at rest. A Harley-Davidson looks loud and slow, and generally performs to that level.

Over time, you may discover that it is, in fact the same. How you address the respective platforms may be different, but they respond in like manner to like input. To your point though, most have no idea what they're looking at, so erroneous conclusions are a given.

Discouraging, perhaps; but don't take it to heart. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160113-are-your-opinions-really-your-own

Why should the hinge point be lower than the pivot axis of the ankle joint? Andy why do you suppose Scarpa, (and other manufacturers) locate the hinge below that axis?

https://www.amazon.com/Come-Ski-Me-Stein-Eriksen/dp/B00005VN6K/ref=sr_1_2?crid=27GW5H6OX8I46&keywords=stein+eriksen+book&qid=1555330142&s=gateway&sprefix=stein+eriksen%2Caps%2C254&sr=8-2-spell

Might be your foot being twisted (inversion, dorsiflexion) in the boot shell in search of a little more je ne sais quoi in those rare moments when the pirate returns to claim the heelside turn. See around :39-40 in the first of the recent clips. If/when the front leg goes straight, you can't roll your knee sideways to add/subtract edge angle. So you get a reflexive twitch of the foot instead. Combine that with tension across the muscle, and you'll get some soreness after repeated exposure. Or not.

Providing equipment advice without constructing some sort of athlete profile, or at the very least having some idea of the 'problem' at hand, amounts to a vanity project. What works for you (or those in your circle) may not work at all for someone you know next to nothing about. The bulk of the advice given is equipment related, but the original question is still: I'd suggest more questions of the OP, and fewer assumptions about the OP. He's got experience on three platforms, each of which likely reflect his preferences in both performance, terrain, and movement. Whether or not he actively pursues all three, or is inclined toward one or the other, will provide additional information as to how he might approach alpine snowboarding. And so on. About that... About time you checked the date.

Read something recently where the ratings tend to be relative within a brand, rather than across all brands. For instance, your 130 flex Salomons might be significantly stiffer than my 150 Langes. Which would explain a few things. Not that strange. Mostly tribal, with a side order of commerce, and a dash of 'my friend said it won't work'. If the OP happens to telemark in the NTN version of the Scott/Garmont boot, he can use that as transitional footwear. Typical for softbooters to skid more on the heelside, and rail easier on the toeside. That same rider on hardboots can enlist the added leverage to use edge angle as a means of compensating for inadequate weight distribution.

^Good plan. Looked like you had plenty of room and ease for overtaking. Appeared more contemplative than evasive. Not so much 'muscle memory', (depending on how you view that concept), more that repetition with subtle variation on that particular pitch will gradually allow you to relax, and as you relax, you'll find more flow/harmony. At which point you won't so much be 'trying' for consistency, but using consistency as a launchpad for exploration. How many days do you have left to your season?

As a 4/1 ploy, you'd have better luck ditching the ski poles.

Well, for one thing: I clearly misread the original post. Had I not left my trusty monocle at the lens grinder for a tune-up that very morning, I likely would have shared your keen observation that the OP wanted a simple shopping list of equipment, rather than a nuanced response as to how one might proceed toward an activity that is very similar, and yet specifically different from his previous experience(s). After all, it’s been established that no one can be told what alpine snowboarding is; you have to ‘see’ it for yourself. ->I remember that time I sought counsel of Bruce ‘Almighty’: He wisely suggested that if I was ‘going in’, I should go ‘all in’; at which point I convinced myself to buy the most performance I could afford. And then some. Doesn’t really matter that I hardly ever ride it, that the throttle response is more than my skill set can handle. At least I can talk about how sweet the ride will be when/if I ever take it out of storage. Of course, the greater part of that minor issue, was not paying attention to the part about proven technology v. the latest shiny tech… ->Given the OP's evident (yet unstated) prowess at hockey, we can readily assume he’ll sail past the usual ‘obstacles to success’ on alpine gear, and should, therefore, buy only the best of what’s around, according to qualified consensus. No point wasting time dallying over particular needs, wants or goals; lest the native hue of resolution be sicklied over with the pale cast of Thought. Anyway, you were 100% right. My bad.

^Your body looks happier. ->Except for the last part of the last clip, where it seems the system needs a 'reboot'. That tail whip is what happens when you depend too much on the surface as a reference plane, and then something changes down there. While there are a few things worth mentioning, I'd run with what you've got for awhile, and just take notes on things that give pause for thought. And don't worry about the hands for the time being. Pay attention instead to 'unforced consistency'. Thanks for the follow through.

The shotgun approach leaves you more pulp than pelt, which is fine, if the goal is to merely kill the cat. To extract something of value from the practice, it pays to be more exacting in your process. As with other threads of this nature, there's a lot of anodyne suggestion from well-meaning enthusiasts; offered with almost no useful information regarding the athlete. That's good for re-allocation of resource, but hardly a path to success. Assuming you’re already familiar with the 'educational' content on my site, what else would you like to see, or think would be useful?

Leon? What do you mean, ' I'm not helping' ?

Twenty... Thirty, (cross-referenced).

Course build is looking 'assertive'.

Surface today was almost uniformly 'match grade'.

The other, less obvious advantage to using the modified B/I platform, is that you'll have range to affect the boot offset. Probably not a good idea, especially in this case. Small athlete, geometry, etc.