Beckmann AG

While the ski edges may not actually be used symmetrically in most cases,(by most skiers) that does not mean the possibility of such use should be compromised. Many are unable to use both skis productively at the same time precisely because they do not both meet the snow in a usable manner simultaneously. Similarly, (and this is not meant as a slight) your understanding of internal rotation used as a means of increasing 'edge pressure' at the tip does not preclude other, better options which may not require rotation. And 'carving' is just one application of the equipment, with its own goals, for which SomaTec may be uniquely suited. As you already have a pair of Somas for skiing, you should give them a try on your board. In most cases, the hindfoot follows the forefoot when weighted. So, whether or not the foot rolls in/out under load (dependent on support or lack thereof), the tibia distal will still glide along the facets of the Talus proximal (AKA Astragalus?), along the usual path. From the outward reference frame, the knee tracking itself might appear different, and in fact optimal, over the supported/canted foot. Canting, done right, affects joint mobility and muscle tension, not necessarily edge contact angle. Done right, canting reduces joint stress. Boot hinge points are based on several things, one of which is tuning the flex of the boot through either shearing friction or distortion. I have moved my telemark boot hinge pivots to match the node of my inner ankle bone, which more or less allows my ankle to flex unimpeded. This may not be desirable for most skiers, bent on powering the shovel of the ski via leverage. If you want greater dexterity, you want the boot to mirror/and or support the articulations of your skeletal structure. Given the myriad opinions on how one should best ski or ride, cuff rivet location is at best a necessary compromise. Pretty sure I've tried that, and as I recall, it felt weird. But don't let that dissuade you from doing it yourself. Sorry John, easily sidetracked... Forward lean will always be independently relevant based on bone faceting and soft tissue, so this could be commercially viable. If the cuff can easily be molded along with the scafo, that may alleviate 'cankle' problems for some users. Now if only the actual significance of forward lean was well known... The problem with using this boot for snowboarding is the eventual cracking associated with the overlap shell design. I suspect you would like more flex in the boot than the plastic will tolerate. On the other hand, even if it worked for only a short period of time, a truly anatomic shell fit with a quality liner might open a few eyes... Given all the possibilities available for 'personalizing' a boot, using the Soma configuration to make up for inadequate foot support is a bit like leaving the rat trap closed on your finger and taking a Tylenol for the pain.

About as fond of the SomaTec as I am of Duck. Both are justified using flawed logic. 'Natural' foot splay is most often a byproduct of foot support. If a foot collapses medially, then a splayed stance feels more solid at a 'fixed' stance width. Support the foot properly, and a 'foot parallel' stance feels pretty darn good. And, the foot loads up better along its mid-line, rather than off to one side. A ski has two usable edges. Effective skiers make full use of both. The Soma stance may make the inside edge 'stronger' by way of bone stacking to the medial side, but does little to account for the usability of the outside edge. If you do not account for joint mobility by way of foot support, shell/ramp geometry, and accurate canting, you really haven't done much other than delude yourself by way of a lightened wallet. In other words, you might feel stronger on your inside edge, but you really aren't going to ski any better. World Cup level skiers will ski well regardless of what they have on their feet, so their results are poor proof of concept. Dolomite used a laterally offset shell back in the '90's to make the inside edge 'more powerful'. You might also recall the Salomon 'Honeycomb Hideout' from a few years ago. Softening the lateral side of the shell was supposed to make the inside ski more effective. If these concepts were truly useful, they would still be on the market. Meanwhile, the 'conventional' 4 buckle overlap continues to dominate in competition. Most universal 'quick fixes' aren't really. Molding the shell to better match the contour of the foot and lower leg is a good idea, certainly better than the usual approach of using a generic mold and packing it full of goo. The irony lies in the fact that it really isn't that difficult to achieve comfort in a conventional shell. (The note on different forward lean settings for different skier ability is laughable, and saps credibility from the concept). You may see this change with the widespread use of isocline plates, and the evolution of 'technique'. It looks like Fin is already working on a 'low fat' version of the TD3, so binding flex will likely change as well.

If your foot is not hitting plastic in the bare shell while standing on your footbed, then boot volume is probably not the problem. With the liner in the boot, and the boot buckled, does your foot/ankle feel at all twisted? If you invert and then evert your (unweighted) foot, and then relax, does the joint feel centered, or cocked to one side? If the latter, then you need to address cuff alignment and/or contouring, probably around the medial malleolus. When you stand with feet parallel in the boots, on a hard flat surface, does it feel like you have solid footing, or does 'blade contact' show its face? If the latter, then you need to re-evaluate your foot support. 'Proper' foot support is not that easy to come by. Accounting for pedal joint stack can be rather involved, and requires the right materials, time, and knowledge. For a quick test, stand on one bare foot on a hard level surface, head level, hands hanging, and evaluate the muscle activity in your lower leg/ankle/foot. Repeat standing on the footbed. The effort should be considerably reduced. Ideally, there should be almost no movement required to balance in this way. You can gradually stack business cards under your first met head and see if you can effect a change in effort. Your body will be sensitive to far less of a change than one card, but there is no need to get overzealous at this point. You did not indicate if you felt pain in your front foot, rear foot, or both. Binding cant/lift/splay all affect how a foot is loaded. As does preferred 'mode' of riding. E.G., if you like to ride with a lot of knee flex, invariably you will load the forefoot disproportionately. Taking into account that your mode of riding may need to pander to your supervisors, you should find two effective boot/binding configurations that work without pain and stick with them. Check your email...

For those with pain along the 'blade' of the foot: To better plan your course of action, determine whether that part of your foot is being 'squeezed', or if that part of your foot is bearing the majority of your weight while riding/standing on the board. Similar pain, different resolution.

"In anything at all, perfection is finally achieved, not when there is anything more you can add, but when there is nothing more you can take away; when a body has been stripped to its nakedness..." -Antoine de St Exupery, from Wind, Sand, Stars The author was, of course, referring to aircraft design, but as he indicates, (and you correctly intuit), this philosophy can be applied to quite a few things, snowsport among them. Quality skiing and snowboarding are essentially the same thing. At the core, all one is doing is maintaining a state of fluid equilibrium on a slippery/variable surface by way of rearranging the base of support relative to the center of mass. Ideally, we should be able to engage/disengage the supporting edge(s) by way of inversion/eversion of our feet, facilitated by free mobility at the femoral heads. Flexion/extension of the legs are a means of modulating the bend of the board, and as a suspension system to both isolate the CM from the surface, and to allow the board to follow that surface. 'Balance' so to speak, should be referenced off the momentum of the CM, and the path on which it may travel, as opposed to the surface on which we stand. As novices, our energy state is high, while the energy state of the board remains low. As we become more effective, that relationship inverts. Looking exceptionally fluid and relaxed while in motion is fairly simple when you are 'doing' almost nothing. Obviously, there may be more involved depending on circumstance, but those are the 'primary colors'. Most everything else you 'see' is more or less a workaround for blocked joint articulation. Or affect, conveying a sense of identity. For an otherwise 'healthy' athlete, impaired ROM is almost universally derived from equipment configuration. (Though another possibility is trying to do things that you think you are supposed to do, but really shouldn't.) For optimal outcome, the board and rider should have coincident states of 'zero output', which is to say, that when the rider is fully relaxed, the board should be 'relaxed' as well. Ergo, all effort on the part of the rider is then pro-active, rather than re-active (compensatory). Tune out all the 'static', and you are left with either music; or silence.

You may get beneficial contouring (good for tactile feedback), but unless you have exceptionally solid feet (not many of those on the market), the support will not be sufficient. 'Arch support' by the way, is a misnomer. Supporting the foot by the arch is akin to pushing up on the Keystone and expecting the structure to hold without mishap.

5 out of 5 hipsters agree: Derailleurs, brakes, and freewheels are a stylistic impediment. For consideration: http://vimeo.com/11894823 http://vimeo.com/15842862 Interesting translation of movement and change of direction. Also aim.

Not unless your foot structure ranks in the topmost percentile. Or, if your ability to rationalize is particularly effective.

Moving the bindings back 1 cm will affect board response with the existing boot/binding relationship. Lifting the toe under the boot will affect posture, which may then affect board response via rider input options. Raising the rear boot toe between boot and binding could affect ROM, leverage, and pressure distribution, all at the same time, and not necessarily for the best, . If you change the internal ramp, you may only affect ROM and pressure distribution, but not leverage. Ideally, you make small changes to get what you want for the smallest compromise. Raising the rear boot toe externally will likely straighten the rear leg, rotating the pelvis/torso anti-clockwise, thus shifting the default weight distribution forward. For Two_Ravens, I suggested the front foot, as most Deeluxe boots have too much internal ramp, combined with 'floating forward lean' by way of the BTS unit. Raising the front boot toe slightly should rotate her right hip clockwise (as viewed from above) which would move her CM toward the tail of the board without muscular expenditure. Also, with the hips rotated slightly in that direction (more aligned, as I think Rob is suggesting) movement of the CM at slow speeds via 'angulation' is more facile. Regarding turn initiation: The delay in initiation seen in the clips involves previous turn completion, and the arrangement of body parts that creates stability for the rider in that part of the turn. Rob, When you reference 'steer', what do you envision? I realize that you are not suggesting 2Rs ingest more beef, but I hear that term bandied about so much (and so often uselessly) that I would like your version. Nigel, Re: 'toeside/heelside' hands: We are 'balance strong' on the long axis of the board, and 'balance weak' on the short axis. Particularly at the turn connection. The hands and arms are useful for 'filling in' , if you will, the gaps in our balance as we move. The catch is, they are most effective when not already dedicated to another task. As reference points, one could say that the movements of hands and arms to a particular location indicates a need to counterbalance some other body part. So, in the case of 2Rs, if both of her hands are arranged over the toeside edge of the board, while the heelside is engaged, it stands to reason that, perhaps, too much mass is off to the inside of that turn, at that moment. As she becomes more accurate at moving various body parts from turn to turn, the location of her hands relative to the board should be less variable. If you take a peek at the clip of Sigi that Rob (and Seraph) referenced: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31798 You may notice that he has one hand to each side of his board. When he makes a mistake with his feet, one hand or the other will move to cover that mistake. Be it up, down, forward, or back. E.G., every so often, his left hand swings away from the center of the turn while on a heelside. One could speculate that perhaps he had moved too much mass too quickly to the inside. Given that he is moving fast enough to have sufficient 'covering' momentum, the hand/arm movement need only be brief to be effective. From a rider improvement perspective, it would be a mistake to suggest that he quiet his hands, rather, it would be prudent to determine why they moved in the first place. It is interesting to note that he exhibits more tension through his hands and arms than does 2Rs. Your clips provide a fairly good image for evaluation and emulation, and not only because your performance is atypical for your gender. If women (and men) want to ride better, they need to avail themselves of quality information and imagery, and 'push' their on snow application, their understanding of what they are doing, and how they might do it better. A great deal of snowsports instruction involves somewhat abstract suggestions on how an athlete might improve. Such suggestions are relatively easy to accept by the suggestee, as they are subject to interpretation, and as such, indeterminant. (Get forward, be more aggressive, develop angles, build edge pressure, steer the skis, etc.) The explanation of direct causal links can be overwhelming, as you either get it, and fix it; or you don't. Hardbooting itself need not be complicated. Done well, there's not much involved. Removing the myriad obstacles to performance involves a number of overlapping variables, a project by its very nature. Don's observation on ROM and its effect is entirely relevant, but I tend to look for what would involuntarily impair ROM, rather than on ROM itself. An athlete won't give up useful movement options without good reason, and in your case, achieving stability trumps ROM. Resolve the source of instability, gain ROM. Very few actually benefit from a flat front mount. Check your email.

You don't say.... That being the case, have you ever tried to link a turn on a flat pitch with your eyes closed?

Well, your deduction (or at least parts thereof) may not actually be erroneous. Although a few commas might help... I would probably start elsewhere, but since you want to go with ROM... If there was a bit more 'give' from the hips down, the finish of the heelside would be smoother, and the toeside would be less delayed. As stands , at that point, the hips are a bit to the inside, while the shoulders are counterbalancing the hips. As the board 'escapes', the hips rise, while the shoulders pitch/rotate slightly into the toeside turn. If the knees, ankles and hips were to 'soften' slightly just ahead of that point, the torso may remain more upright, which, while certainly better in the long term for spinal health, would also set 2Rs up for a smoother heelside/toeside transition due to more consistent weighting of the board through that phase, (and the rotationally derived 'flick' pointed out by Kieran might disappear). In addition, with the shoulders first into the toeside, eventually, the upper body mass and the path of the board begin to 'collide' near the end of the toeside turn, leading to a brief 'stall' as the board tries to get out from under the rider. Energy that could be channeled into the next turn is diminished as the CM is lifted, and there ensues a slight lag before the board 'powers up' on the heelside edge as the CM falls. As the board is not particularly active for the first part of the turn, the CM is momentarily not supported and drops a bit too quickly to the inside. Or, in other words, the board is tilted, but only slightly loaded. The binding bias issue may play a part here, as the board would tip too easily to the heelside, while requiring greater effort to the toeside. Definitely more noticeable on hard snow, as 2Rs mentioned. My guess, Don, would be less towards rear foot involvement, and more towards binding setback and front foot toe lift. Of course, implementing your suggestions would no doubt yield some interesting and perhaps informative results. The extent of knee flexion through the toeside, and the forward aspect of the torso on the same, suggest that the board is slightly front loaded, and 2Rs is compensating a bit by moving mass tailward as a means of stabilizing. On at least two toesides, there is a slight tailwash effect right near the end of the turn. This 'wash' is also present on a few heelsides. A common compensator for forward weighting on a heelside is to move the hips further inside to offset skid through increased edge angle. (Which refers back to the second sentence of my first paragraph). This 'sitting back' (for lack of a better term) is similar to what you see in alpine skiers who are over-ramped. Drawback, among other things, is that suspension travel has been compromised in favor of fore/aft stability. Again referring back to paragraph 1; with a partially collapsed suspension, the 'softening' option may be off the table. Bear in mind any adjustments to either boot/binding configuration or 'technique' should be minor. Probably 1 cm setback, and maybe 1 or 2 degrees of additional toe lift. (If the bindings are bail closure, you can stack up a few business cards between the front toe pad and boot). That, and try to make sure you always have a 'toeside hand', and a 'heelside hand'. This should make the transitions less tippy, and will provide a reference point for resolving rotational issues. The admirable thing is that 2Rs is not all wadded up like a discarded candy wrapper, nor is she trying to flog the board into submission. Rather, it appears she is partial to finesse; feeling her way towards a better path. A cool breeze, if you will, on an otherwise humid day. @Two_Ravens; as your initial post was more about the joy of riding, and less about the technical aspects thereof, I will readily delete this post if you wish.

Hardly pot stirring. Rob made a valid observation with which, for the most part, I agree. That observation cut as well as complimented, and it could have served as a start point for a positive discussion. If I understand correctly, you are relatively new to the sport, working with minimal outside influence. Clearly, you are doing more than a few things right. I am assuming, perhaps in error, that Rob is seeing things in your riding, the identification of which may benefit other riders. My interest is in what could be called 'effective use'. Sorry for any misunderstanding(s).

Yet the lens schmutz does not obscure 2_R's riding to the extent that you are unable to draw a distinction between what she is doing (or not doing), and what other riders are doing (or not doing). So; 'what do you see that is worth replicating/emulating' and 'where would you go from here'? (Other than the 'flowing' part). Particularly relevant to this thread: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34092

The emergent spur is an indicator that you are moving in opposition to your equipment. In this case, you are either rotating too much, or including too many body parts in that rotation. Ideally, you would be bearing weight/pressure on the soles of both feet more or less at all times. The location of the spur suggests that at some phase of the turn, you are lifting/rolling your heel, most likely due to additional weight bearing on both the forefoot and/or the shin as a fulcrum. This also implies that at some point, your weight on a heelside turn is biased too much to the front foot. Rotation in an EC scenario should facilitate inversion/eversion of the feet, which, if possible, allows the rider to steer/countersteer the board to it's next edge, rather than 'kinking' the body to achieve a change in edge contact angle. This rotation should originate (at least at slow speeds) primarily in the hip region, not the torso, despite appearance to the contrary. The articulations should be primarily the femoral heads in the sockets, combined with a very small degree of rotation of the pelvis in the direction of the turn. If, for some reason, inversion/eversion is blocked, then steer/countersteer will not be feasible. Leverage and muscle tension are the primary causes of blocked movement at the ankle structure. Punching, grinding, and padding, will alleviate some of the discomfort, but the foot will still try to move about in the boot. This may lead to other issues. Develop your technique as though riding in sneakers/trainers/tennis shoes.

That said; what suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve upon what you see?

I get that you will be using the cucumber slices to soothe your teary eyes after the course hands you your backside (or is that frontside? I can never remember..); but why the speedsuit? Given the course, you might prefer one of those Norwegian 'flying squirrel' suits for improved maneuverability. No worries, spectator view should be fairly limited.

RE: Garmont I have skied (extensively) the Triple G, EnerG and now the Voodoo. The Voodoo, which shares a last with the Shogun and Prophet, is a significant departure and improvement. Toss the stock liners and get yourself a pair of Lange WC lace-ups. Again, no comparison on fit, quality and/or performance. The Lange liner is thinner, so keep this in mind when you shell fit. Also, the shell plastic is easy to punch, though it will not retract if you make a mistake. The Voodoo shell has a sane ramp of around 5 degrees, as opposed to the previous iterations at about twice that. Last I measured, the DEEluxe was around 10-11. Despite the Vibram sole, snow feel is actually quite good. Better, in fact, than a Tecnica Diablo 130. @tufty; Was wondering, on another thread, why you were not happy with the Garmont. Thanks for the additional detail.

Rudolf might have noticed that most hardbooters experience a rise in pressure as their turn develops. This mirrors, to some extent, the combustion phase of the OTTO cycle. He might suggest a more favorable outcome, if the rider was to experience a state of constant pressure instead. This would resemble the combustion phase of the idealized DIESEL cycle, which tends to be a more efficient means of converting stored energy into motion. He probably would have been enamored of hardbooting, as a partial analog to the process bearing his name. Too bad about that ferry incident...

Was not on the hill today as supplies were running low. Did the overland to town for tobacky, molasses, biscuits, and a keg of flour. Big sippy holes on 27. Had to make use of the Special Performance Group SAAB Fording Snorkel down at the wash. Should have taken the Vityaz. Major snowpack release off the hangar roof down at the airport. Several small aircraft are trapped inside, immediate rescue appears doubtful. Weekend conditions should be wet, sticky, and deep.

E-mailed ya.

From your first post, where it reads as though you are very close to, if not successful, in EC-ing a toeside turn. Supported in post #13 where you show a photo of yourself laid out, and the statement that you were able to 'stand up' somewhere after that photo. In other words, if your toeside mechanics are working (or very close to working), then why are you expecting similar results on the heelside if the mechanics are different? Unless I misunderstood something.

Perhaps, if you are able to 'get lower' and stand up at the end of a toeside, then replicating your toeside bodily orientation to the board on the heelside might provide similar results? After all, the board is symmetric, and should provide like results on each edge? From your first video clip, as well as the still photos, it is apparent that your body is arranged differently on the heelside as opposed to the toeside. On the toeside, you are stacked up more or less directly over the topsheet, whereas on the heelside, much of your body is hanging off to the side. If you note, in the EC photomontage, particularly in the last 6 frames, the rider is stacked atop the board, which allows for more even decamber of the board, more consistent control of available pressure, and a longer duration over which that control may be exercised.

Quote: Originally Posted by Beckmann AG In other words, bake your own pie rather than fighting for a slice of pie that has shriveled and grown stale. You misunderstand. Though the ingredients may need tweaking, Bomber is already baking a better pie. Participant numbers in the ski industry have been essentially flat for what, the last 30 years? Skiers, softbooters, et al participate because they identify, in one way or another, with a given mode of glisse. If they want to carve a turn, they will. Be there to support that interest. I am not suggesting that 'you' sit back and do nothing. Clearly, Bomber industries is making an effort to innovate and provide a quality product, and runs events to involve and encourage the end user. Obviously, you are using a different business model than Burton, as your market is a different market. Burton has chosen to sell quantity rather than quality. Bomber has chosen the opposite route. The industry as a whole will do nothing to aid you until they have something to gain, and they are clearly preoccupied with gathering the low-hanging fruit borne of the 'dumbing down' of skiing and snowboarding. Certainly, you need to 'market to new people'. Make sure those 'new' people, are also the 'right' people. Slow growth is solid growth. Rapid growth is simply pulp. The shift began about three years ago, at least here in my backyard. I've got knee-high children gawking at my gear, doing comparative analysis with their own boards/skis, and claiming most emphatically, that what I have is 'cool'. With each passing year, the new hired instructors are less likely to sneer at my rig, and more likely to ask insightful questions about how to ride better. Taking the 'red pill' is in vogue. I casually passed a parked pack of park punks from the local academy this afternoon, and by the lift base, at least one of them asked, with obvious enthusiasm "Can we carve with you? You can seriously rip on that thing!" (Heck, I'm merely competent). The youth is aware, and they take notice. Make it accessible, and they will partake. Particularly if your offering is a bit 'edgy' or rebellious. Old boards, used boards, new boards; ski boots, soft boots, moon boots, it matters not. The sensation of a carved turn isn't exclusive to the latest technology. Quote: Originally Posted by BlueB How would you avoid getting banned from the hill, for stealing the business from their school? This is a no-brainer. Stay in on-mountain lodging at Sugarloaf, get a free lesson for each nights stay. Can be touchy during busy periods, or if you are flying solo, but if you have a small group, and I know you are coming, you'll be accommodated. Hardcore in the morning, novices in the afternoon, compare notes in the bar. What could be simpler?

If you ride steep terrain with hard snow, you may wish to consider that excess overhang at 90 degrees may preclude self arrest in the event of a fall.

Don't bother. You have a niche market that expresses, daily, an enviable loyalty to both your product and your customer service. Trying to go mainstream is, quite simply, a waste of money. Presumably, you have data on who buys Bomber products, and who participates in hardbooting. Look to draw more from that demographic, and forget about trying to attract those not predisposed to this mode of recreation. In other words, bake your own pie rather than fighting for a slice of pie that has shriveled and grown stale. Snowboarding, and hardbooting in particular, are very young developmentally. It appears that the SES is well received, and looks to grow a bit each year. (Or so it seems from this side of the computer). Position yourself for the eventual growth as the sport matures, and let the growth take care of itself. Human nature more or less assures that as the sport gains participants, the younger segment will push for competitions that suit their needs. The inclusion of younger riders, as seen and referenced at SES '11, is a move in the right direction. Meanwhile, let the current race formats die their eventual death. You already have an enthusiastic sales staff working more or less Pro Bono. Take the next step and figure out how you can:1. Provide the tools to close the deal, and 2. Reduce barriers to participation. To wit: Quote: Originally Posted by zoltan Develop a binding which will allow ski boots to work somewhat well on a board. That would take a huge cost out of the picture for demoing a carving setup for new users. It would also create a very easy entry point for skiers interested in our sport. Scenario: Two days ago I was exchanging pleasantries with Michaud in the Spillway lift corral. A skier sidles up, expresses admiration for our endeavors, indicates his recent acquisition of hardbootin' stuff, and inquires about instruction. I depart for work, and Jack shares a chair. The next day he finds me, and we get to it. He's equipped with an old Prior, a pair of manky TD1 with flat front and inboard cant on the rear, and Tecnica Icons, (quite possibly the worst ski boot ever produced). A few minutes of wrenchery later, and he's grinning and shaking his head in disbelief at how relatively easy carving can be. If I can do that with a TD1, what do you suppose is possible with a TD3 or OS1? With no disrespect intended, I submit that if you can't facilitate enjoyment at the entry level with a ski boot, you may wish to reconsider the way in which you configure a prospective rider. In truth, they are fighting their interface geometry, not the boot. The stiffer boot simply highlights the problem. Are you really that willing to give up a new participant? I'm not advocating ski boot use for the masses, but as Zoltan points out, ski boots can certainly eliminate the more obvious roadblocks. I'm willing to hold a small stash of demo boards and grippers, but the obvious question is, who covers the liability?