Beckmann AG

http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=33052

The shell may not be the issue now, but with a two finger fit, it will be, not too far down the road. If you plan on riding more than three times/season, two fingers is a little excessive. Particularly in a boot with a thermo liner. Unless your fingers are dimensionally akin to linguini.

Most likely. If the liner is not a thermo-moldable unit, the interior dimension is constrained by the fabric of the outermost layer. More often then not, this outer layer will not readily stretch until you 'relieve' it with a razor knife. Sometimes toe clearance is gained in a liner by relieving around the heel. If you do have a thermo liner, inside volume is constrained by the internal dimensions of the shell. It sounds like the problem here is more the liner and less the shell?

What is your foot type? Egyptian? Greek? Cuboid? You may notice that the toebox of the boot does not much resemble the peripheral contour of the average set of toes. And it may be particularly at odds with yours. A qualified boot fitter should have a press die which would enable him/her to reshape the toebox to more closely resemble your foot, and easily gain up to 5mm of interior length without much fuss. And that would be before grinding. It may also be the case that something about your hindfoot volume does not match the shell, and this could be pushing your foot further into the front of the boot. Insufficient instep clearance can also drive your toes into a wall.If the numbering on the liner is on a plastic wrap around the cuff, this is not necessarily the size of the liner, it may simply be the size range of that plastic piece itself. With your bare foot in the shell, preferably atop a quality custom footbed, you should have about 5mm of clearance between foot and shell on all sides, notwithstanding one or two errant points of contact. If this is the case, then the liner itself is the problem, and liners are easy to modify.

Unfavorable lever/fulcrum ratio.

Catek OS1 or WC. Durable, and most of the static can be tuned out of the system; as the lift and cant are wholly independent to the n'th. Better still would be one of the above on the front, and a Sidewinder on the rear.

Front boot? Rear boot? Both? When you say 'lateral' do you mean you want more movement only away from your midline, or more movement both medially and laterally? What do you hope to gain from this extra flex? If you simply need a bit more 'cush' in the cuff, you could install a section of neoprene to one or both sides of your liner. Other possibilities exist depending on the answers to the questions above. Or:

You're welcome. If more riders rode with 'feel', there would be more riders feeling good about their riding.

That would make more sense than buying another liner. Unless your bare foot, centered in the shell, is not hitting plastic. In which case, modify the liner you have. The outer layer on your current liner is fairly restrictive and will not stretch without provocation. You can provide a little give by making either an 'X', or several small slash marks (like gills) with a utility knife over the affected area. Use caution and cut only the outermost layer to start.

Yes. Although I am not so sure about your description of what you are doing, Vs. what you are doing. I might be misunderstanding you. One of the salient points of the cross-through concept, is that it allows a rider to use the upper body mass, rather than the supporting surface, as a 'base of support'. (The path of the CM can easily become more predictable and dependable than the snow surface). To that end, one should not displace this mass 'vertically' any more than necessary, as this tends to lead to varying pressure outputs underfoot, which in turn makes the path of the CM less predictable. And that of course defeats the purpose. So, if you (or your board) are getting airborne at the transitions, you are not utilizing cross-through. Your 'knees hitting your chest' indicates that you are, in effect, bottoming out your suspension system. Like the tie wrap on a set of Moto-x forks, this contact indicates that you are using full travel at least every so often, but ideally, you should not aim to do this on every turn. So far as your un-weighting, how you go about that is up to you and your desired outcome. Vary the intensity and duration until you find something that works reliably on the prevalent surface. Apply the same to your edge change mechanism. Aim to find the eye of the storm, rather than evidence of its passing.

Too many riders 'talk', when they should be 'listening', and their riding suffers for it. 'Active observation' perhaps? An elongated flat spot at the transition implies that your progress across the board is proportionally slower than your glide rate. The knee articulation involved in your down-unweighting may simply rock the board from one edge to the other at a faster pace; and it may be the faster tilt, rather than pressure application/reduction, which affects your trench marks. If you're getting air, you're not doing cross-through, and vice-versa. Well, to paraphrase the poet William Blake, from 'Proverbs of Hell' "Just enough! Or too much!" It's a fine line, and hard snow is not tolerant of surplus. A plateau is often the result of faithfully executing the wrong movements at the wrong time, and getting better and better at doing so. To move past a plateau, one needs to recognize which inputs are appropriate, which are superfluous, and which are absent. Quality riding is more about minimalism than excess.

You may have answered your own question. If you listen to your board, it will tell you where to stand, when to stand there, and when to stand elsewhere. A good idea. Although being 'fast' in the transition could be misinterpreted as being somewhat rushed. Consider a transition with timing and application that is smooth enough so as to seem like there is no transition. This would imply that your 'edging movements' and pressure management are in proportion to the job at hand. Or foot, as is more the case. Tilt your board evenly with both feet. Corkscrews are for wine bottles.

For starters, you really should address heel height inside the boot before you do so outside the boot, as that will isolate the pressure distribution under your foot from the effects of forward lean and/or more 'immediate' boot tongue contact. Otherwise, you will be affecting several variables at once. As to the original question, that would depend somewhat on how Bobby is defining 'the back seat'. Is this perceptual or actual? Is it that he feels he needs to load the rear leg in order to make an effective turn? Is he never engaging the board under the front foot in any part of the turn? Or something else? The answer to that would dictate what to do next. I know in my own case, I have a leg length difference, and I shim up my front binding. Tuned with aluminum flashing. The internal ramp is greater in my rear boot(6.7) than in my front(5) as well. And I use something like 2.7 degrees of toe lift, and 4.1 heel lift as set by the binding. Deviating from this arrangement will distinctly affect how the board performs, and how much effort I need to expend to achieve that performance. Relative binding height will have an effect, but this is not necessarily due to the height of each ankle. More likely, how does the height of each foot affect the general location of the rider's CM with regard to the running length of the board. If you lower your heel too much in a ski boot, you will find that your hamstrings, lower back, and popliteal region of your knee will become tight/irritated. And skiing with a low heel feels really unnerving. Too much, by the way, need only be a matter of a millimeter or two. Riding with unequal binding 'stack' may feel odd, but not necessarily in such an obvious way. Rather, it may affect timing from one edge to the other more than anything else. And issues of timing can be written off to all sorts of things.

BobD, I think maybe I misunderstood your initial question. Sorry about that. When you refer to an 'imbalance', how would you describe such? BobbyB, Toe and heel lift will affect you more across the width of the board, then along the length. Stance angle will play some part in the extent to which it matters. So in answer to your query; no, not really.

Played with, no. Resolved, yes. E.G., If the rear binding is too high relative to the front, the rider may offset to the rear of the board to compensate, (particularly on the heelside turn) thus entering the toeside 'back of center', so to speak. Beyond a certain height difference, you may see overcompensation to the opposite extent. For riders with a known structural leg length difference, this is an important consideration.

Find me in the AM and I'll tell you where some of the rocks are hiding.

Teach, If you are so inclined to try and solve your own problems, you could try 'adjusting' the forefoot posting on your Prokinetics. 6mm under the first metatarsal head is about average, and from your description of your feet and knee conditions, you may want to increase that in small increments. Nashua makes two fairly thick duct tapes, models 357, and 557. 557 is slightly elastic and will have a bit of 'give'. Either way, you can layer this to increase your posting. The tape will eventually slide around, but it should give you an indication of whether or not you would benefit from more support in that area. If it hurts, it's wrong. Once you reach a conclusion for your street shoes, use that same modified footbed to check the forefoot fit of your Indys. This will help resolve the question of whether or not additional foot support or shell modification is needed to relieve the 'squeeze'. Your speculation is not misguided. So if I read this right, the meniscus (lateral?) was not intact. Was the missing cartilage simply 'worn away' or was it somehow deformed? How would you describe the origin (where is the onset first noticeable) and nature of your knee pain? Of the feet I see, the majority are mobile to the medial side, to varying extent. This has a direct bearing on binding splay angle, 'heel lift', knee tracking, funky edge engagement, and so on.

From the CATEK web site: Short | Long Plates The Short Plate is ideal for smaller boot sizes (<10US) and lighter (<180lbs) riders. The 3/8" thickness provides a more forgiving ride than the long plate. The Long Plate accepts all boot sizes (up to 31.5MP, depending on the boot), and its 1/2" thickness provides the most powerful ride on the market. Riders weighing more than 180lbs or with a boot size greater than 10US must use the long plate.

What that really means, is that you bear an inordinate amount of weight on the outside of your foot/feet. And thus the soles wear. It sounds like the medial side of your foot is overly mobile, and thus the 'blade' of the foot bears load to greater effect. The hindfoot follows the forefoot, so if the bones comprising the ankle joint are sufficiently 'loose', that structure will roll inward under load if the forefoot is mobile. Pronation simply describes the direction of ankle roll as inward rather than outward, but does not necessarily ascribe meaning as to why. No surprise your knees hurt. Quality foot support would be a distinct benefit, and may forestall future knee issues.... Of course, you may have trouble finding an appropriate fabricator. Many walking footbeds/orthotics are overly concerned with heel strike, and from the sound of things, that isn't really your problem. Are you able to stand around in your hardboots without complaint?

Learning to ride should be a simple, organic experience, devoid of unnecessary contrivance. The 'rounded' base creates a 'vague' area of contact between the rider and the supporting surface. Given that our ability to find our location in space is largely dependent on our sense of touch, this is a clear disadvantage if we wish to remain upright on a fickle, slippery surface. Most novices make large, somewhat unrefined movements. The extra base bevel creates a 'toggle' effect on turn entry, whereby the rider will lean in (too far) until they feel edge contact, followed by a correction, and a second inward tilt as the board swings around. That kind of 'tippiness' is absent on 'conventional' boards. Obviously, the base geometry allows for easier pivoting, but beginners shouldn't need to, nor should they be encouraged, to pivot as a means of turn initiation. (in part because rotational movements require both an anchor to commence, and a similar anchor to conclude. This type of sequential, multi-skill movement can be problematic for the novice.) If you always have deep, sticky, wet-granular spring snow in your teaching arena, then the LTR board is much less of a handicap. Properly sized and configured conventional boards work very well, despite the fact that they are often the cheapest product available from a given manufacturer.

If the mechanism is unclear, then they are simply looking for answers in the wrong place(s). Given that 'supination' and 'pronation' are somewhat mutually exclusive conditions for a given foot/ankle, how did you arrive at this 'diagnosis'? Squishy shoes will initially feel comfortable, but the 'cush' will often lead to fatigue and other issues. The geometry of the sole should be matched to the task you are doing while standing.

Based on what I have seen in recent years, I think a motivated handful of paper wasps could spit out a better product... Granted, 32, DC, and a few others are doing some interesting things with the BOA closure system, but as few shells are anatomical, the improved closure system amounts to more strapping tape on a cardboard box. If you want a better softboot, take your list of features and the closest production boot to a laid-off Italian bootmaker with a suitcase of cash. Let his/her disgust/passion fuel the project, and sooner or later you will have what you want. Decide in advance what stance angles you want to ride, so the boot might articulate in accord. If you have the wherewithal and the interest, I'm sure something can be arranged. Not mentioned due to my boots fitting, not failing. Lack of 'comfort' goes along with a more anatomic last, particularly if it does not match your own foot. What parts failed on yours, and after how many days use? Speaking of BOAs, bonus point for the 'Python'.

In side by side tests, the average adult on typical eastern hardpack preferred the 'conventional' board to the LTR product. No mystery there. Directional board, properly sized for weight/leg length. (E.G., Cruzer over LTR) Excess width is a hindrance. (Toe overhang is desirable) Binding configuration is paramount. Flat, clean base with camber. Torsional stability. And while you're at it, a pitch of 8.5 degrees, with a straight fall-line, and a flat run-out. And 2-4 inches of fresh, unpacked snow. And the LTR stuff ain't it.

Certification is no measure of quality. There must be one heck of a lot of lousy footbeds/orthotics in circulation. The doctor of record may have 'learned' more from text and dogma than from practical experience? The benefit of running barefoot has more to do with materials, tactile sensitivity, shoe geometry, and their effect on stride elasticity than on foot support (or lack thereof). Strengthening of the feet is a happy byproduct. Poor conformation will likely lead to injury regardless of conditioning. Particularly if the duration and intensity of the endeavor are 'upped'. Perhaps, if you subject yourself to extensive loading while in an 'unnatural' posture. Otherwise, probably not.

Not a soft boot, but... Something like this, with a foamed or lace-up liner, and a spinal flex control, matched to the right board, might work nicely. http://www.garmontusa.com/921026211.html The unconventional overlap probably won't split, the lasting is anatomically correct, and the ramp angle is sane.