Beckmann AG

Ian, While many larger resorts will require some form of certification for employment, many smaller ones do not. Certification, or lack thereof, seldom, if ever, plays a role in my hiring decisions. Ergo, if you have an interest in teaching, don't let this be a barrier to participation. If you are at a place in your life when you can spend a season on snow, you should give it a go. The remuneration will come in the form of hill time, the occasional breakthrough, and every so often you meet nice people and bluff them into thinking you know what you are doing..... The bulk of teaching, as you may already know, takes place at the beginner/lower intermediate level, which means you spend a lot of time moving slowly across the snow. If you pay attention, this, by itself, will reveal the gaps in your 'technique'. The lack of momentum presents one with two paths: You figure out which movements are necessary and appropriate, or you cheat. I.E., if you wish to ride well fast, choose to ride well slow. Most riders present with at least three strikes against them. (Fortunately, snowboarding is not baseball.) Their feet are too far apart, their front binding is mounted too far forward, and their boards are too wide for their foot size. Each problem puts the rider in a situation where their movement options are limited, and the board essentially dictates what the rider can do next. Often the related outcomes are not pretty. There are other issues concerning the athletes conformation. This is the case for both hard- and soft-booters. Skiers have issues of a similar nature. Many enthusiasts don't like to use equipment as some sort of excuse; regardless, the 'technique' one applies is often directly determined by the boot binding board interface. (EC/BOL/WC considered stylistic choices). The snowboard program at Sugarloaf has been my long-term research facility since 1990. I get on well with machinery, and I don't much care for asparagus.

So...are you looking to teach commercially, or do you have a bunch of cohorts constantly looking to you for help? Do you have difficulty translating your understanding of what you do, to someone with much less experience, and/or athletic ability? Do you wish to augment your own skill set, or do you seek a better grasp of causal links/obstacles to achievement? As I recall, you 'LOL-ed' the notion of the free instruction included with the on mountain lodging packages at Sugarloaf/USA. There are any number or riders, some of them contributors to this forum, (and some not) who have taken advantage of this scheme for many years running. Effective teaching of skiing or snowboarding has much to do with identifying and removing obstacles to intuitive, latent movements. Generally speaking, it is a reductive, rather than an additive process; much like stone sculpture, or perhaps, machining. Or, if you prefer, a potato block print.

What's on your mind Shred? Milk and cookies keeping you up?

"Is there any way to mount Old TD'1s to a beutifully retro M6 I saw on ebay?" Yes, in fact there is. Or will be. Adapters are on my 'to do' list, as I would like to take another ride on one of my PJ's, and I am saving my remaining stash of Variplates To fund my eventual retirement. And in the words of J.R. Hadden, "Why build just one, when for the same price, you can have two?" You could always install the UPM pattern with approved repair inserts, and reap the ridicule...

Subject to some interpretation, the notion was bandied about, somewhere in this thread... http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31173

Good point. In a pinch, I find the back seat (removed) from a classic Saab 900 works well. Might look a bit funny in the gym, whatever that is...

Acquire an Airex balance pad, use it to destabilize your base while doing lighter free weights or agility drills. Or stand on it one-footed while brushing your teeth/shaving (not for you straight razor aficianados...) http://www.amazon.com/Airex-Balance-Pad-16-4in-20in/dp/B0011YY86G

If you have access to qualified boot fixers: Ignore the numbers, (and the liner) and find the shell that best matches most of the contours. Size the shell as though the second toe is not longer, and the instep bump is absent, then punch both areas to fit. Most liners have abundant material over the instep, so excising to match the protrusion is fairly straightforward. This is a common fix for when the instep does not actually hit plastic, but the toes are cold and/or the feet are cramping. Feet with high arches generally do not shorten with support. Some feet are 'flat' due to collapse, others are 'flat' and solid. For the short term, you might consider a pair of used jr comp ski boots. Flexy, available cheap, with more options for shell dimension.

If memory serves, Fawcett and Hostetter had something like this underfoot around 92? Had a Sims label. One channel, maybe three inches wide.

Not an expert, but two fingers is a bit much. That's enough room to sublet for student housing... For 'performance' (not 'competition') use, the foot should have ~5mm space around its periphery, when centered in the shell, no liner, no sock, preferably atop a quality footbed. More often than not, given the limited options in shell geometry, this will require a punch or two.

As a rule 'o thumb, if a child can walk and follow you around while doing so, then they have the capacity to ski/snowboard. Kids boards are still way too wide, and, along with skis, are stiffer than would be deemed appropriate. Convex bases don't help. Don't 'kid' yourself, Burton has invested in Burton. With a little luck, kids will have more options shortly. As Blake once wrote: "...The child is father to the man..." so let him teach you how to ski. And if you want to enhance the experience, forget your Kastles. Go to a ski swap and find something more appropriate for slow speed maneuvering.

Speaking of surf and Davey Jones, back when I owned a television, 'floater' was Five-0 speak for 'drowning victim'.

Besides the latch, I don't think there is a hinge at the rear. The Diamir is supposed to go uphill faster than downhill, so mass is not abundant. I don't think you would want to use them with an exceptionally wide ski, or a stiff ski with a lot of flare at tip and tail. As far as suitability, hard to say. I think that would depend on your philosophy of movement, and the means by which you manipulate your skis. E.G., if you routinely ski as though you have no shell around your foot, then they would be worth a try. If you like to lean on the shell, driving your shin into the tongue of the boot, then I would say look elsewhere. If you load them primarily in compression, I don't think slop will be an issue. And this just in... I suspect you could jam a din sole boot into a pair of Bomber Bishops. They don't release, but they are plenty stiff, have lift, are rigid in torsion, weigh less than an alpine binding, and... ...No longer available. Get on that Fin, would ya?! If you can borrow a run on a pair, it would be worth your time for proof of concept. The Diamir has been in production since at least '96?, so finding a used set on the cheap should not be difficult. The design has not changed much either.

I was trying to be charitable. That, and I was thinking of the potential target audience; those who consider themselves 'expert',or performance skiers. It would be more accurate to say something like 'the vast majority of skiers who would regard themselves as experts in a public poll, generate edging/turning inputs with their hips and/or knees, which cannot be regarded as optimal for actual performance skiing.' You must feel like gouging your eyes out with a rusty sabre after a day on the hill.

It just occurred to me that my Fritschi Diamir randonee bindings hinge at the front, with a floating latch at the rear. They provide a fair amount of lift, and I believe the toe and heel are joined by a common beam, the only 'give' is provided by the forward pressure springs.Of course, these are still in the box, hours away from this keyboard, so I can't verify the actual construction, but there you go... I have been teaching reasonably high level alpine skiing on my telemark gear for many years, using the same bindings and sub plates on a variety of skis. The ski itself has more to do with the degree of decamber and tracking while in a turn than does the lack of interference provided by a 'free' heel. So as far as actual, tangible benefits for the general public, probably not. Many performance ski/binding combos are brutally heavy as is, and it's not like they are giving them away. More weight, additional cost, and... The vast majority of the skiing public provides turning inputs with their knees and hips, not their feet; as such, their inputs are not likely to have them skiing well enough to discern any significant difference between independent plates, a solid plate, or a linked/floating plate. Of course, they would notice something, but it would likely have more to do with geometry and psychology than plate design. You can effect any number of equipment changes, and if the subject feels any difference at all, they will tell you that it is better, with no actual change in performance. There is simply too much gray area between 'bad' (or if you prefer, inappropriate) equipment, and the absolute correct setup for that individual. It's a lot like looking for a very small needle in a very large haystack, without prior knowledge of needles.

There are no exact replicas of the SB plates for skiing (that I am aware of), but the Salomon Pilot, and the one of the Rossignol race plates come fairly close. I don't have a photographic memory, so I can't say for sure what the Rossignol or Dynastar linkages look like, but they exist to allow for a rounder arc. The good thing about both, is that they are a 'race room' product, and as such, they are a 'flat mount' which means you could mount a riser atop, or perhaps mount the plate atop another of its kind. For awhile, skis were getting shorter, but now there are length restrictions, so the need for 'free-er' flex may be somewhat obsolete. The limit to stack height for production purposes might be an issue for 'boot out' clearance, but I don't think it should affect the float factor. You may not agree with the FIS rules, but look at all the junk that proliferates in the recreational market. It seems every year the consumer is led willingly down yet another primrose path that leads to nothing other than a lighter wallet. Torsional deflection issues with skis were resolved somewhere back in the mid to late '80s, largely through materials and layup. Snowboard manufacturers could do the same, but then there would be too many complaints from the end users, as the boards would seem overly harsh and unmanageable.Much of the ride characteristics ascribed to torsional issues can be attributed to unintentional inputs provided by the rider. These can be resolved handily via the boot and binding; unfortunately, this option is not cost effective nor accessible for the majority of users. Similarly, the muscular activity in the lower extremities(to which I have alluded, in part, elsewhere) is largely responsible for limiting the ability of a snowboard to accurately follow the terrain while in reverse camber. That, and stylistic affects taken on by the rider in question. Are you looking to resolve a particular situation on skis?

Sorry, I don't follow that. Perhaps my question was misleading(I meant for his knees to remain more or less the same distance from each other through their range of motion). Clarify? I concur with your assessment, illusion or otherwise...Because: The majority seem to have feet which collapse medially. This encourages a splayed stance, which in turn brings the knees closer together during flexion. However, this is less than ideal, despite being a statistical norm.

110/220v, If I read your comments correctly, what the photos represent to you,(rear knee/leg wise) is a byproduct. Now in your opinion, would he be better off if, while 'dropping his weight', his knees were to track parallel, or does it really matter? That does seem to be the case. What, do you suppose, is up with that? Thanks for making the effort. NSR?

No doubt, and I'm sure it reveals a great deal of consistency. I'm not exactly perplexed by what I'm looking at. If you have a succinct explanation for the movement exemplified in the photo, beyond '(he) drives very aggressively with his back leg/knee', then I would like to hear it. Most movements serve a purpose, and quite often the true purpose is less then obvious. If this is not the appropriate venue for my question, then I apologize.

Granted. Unfortunately, the photos do not indicate whether the movement of his back leg/knee is intentional, or reflexive. Care to speculate?

Ski plate chronology goes roughly like this: -Derby/Deflex (solid rear,sliding front, shearing damper glued to topsheet). Originally proposed as a means of dampening shock, but the change in stack height was the true hit. -EPB, anchored in center, composite and metal versions, damper glued or not. (I built an EPB copy for my Factory Prime from carbon fiber way back when; had other fish to fry and never got around to testing). -Various two-piece non-damped risers specific to each binding manufacturer, varying in height. These find favor in slalom, where rubber damping proves to be a liability. -Somewhere around 92? I think it was Greenwood, crashed out of the Sugarloaf Pro/AM Super G when his prototypical Derby lost adhesion with his board. (If you are out there, correct me if I am wrong?) -ESS/Var had a really tall(maybe 2cm?) one piece unit with a lot of rubber. Popular on the pro ski tour, if memory serves. Additionally, I think the original ESS/var had a floating toe piece, linked to a semi anchored heel piece via a stainless strap. -Marker offers their curiously named 'edge pressure system' providing a lofty 3mm? of lift to the public. -FIS gets involved and limits underfoot stack after the untimely death of Ulrike Maier while competing in a downhill in '94. -Ski shapes change, and 'carving skis' bring about a slew of foolish boot concepts and homebuilt plates made of aluminum box section,(to elevate) with the bindings mounted on a separate top plate, incorporating half round contact bumpers into the toe/heel overhangs(Two, count 'em, two diving boards...) I am sure some of these and their variants are still extant on the 'carve' circuit. -Salomon develops several linkage based platforms, some specific to their marque(Propulse?), and at least one other universal design of which I have one set in the rafters. The latter anchored in the back, 'free' sliding in the front. -Marker introduces their 'selective control' system, and later the 'Comshock' damped slider. I believe both are anchored in the rear with a floating front. -Production telemark risers enter the market. Gone are the days of using Joyce Chen cutting boards(they were the thickest available) and pilfering longer 29mm screws from the Marker Cant Kit. Free-heeled nosebleeds prevail until sensibility is restored. Meanwhile, I am using half of an EPB plate under my telemark toe pieces. anchored under the arch, sliding under the toe. Scratches on the topsheet indicate that something is moving while in use, despite the freedom of the heel. I have another single plate in the same application, but the additional rubber tends to make the ski feel a bit 'dead'. Anchored aft of the heel, floating in the front, rubber, no glue, underneath. Waaay back when, I used half of an original Derbyplate, but the stack height was not compatible with the torsional limitations of my Supercomp soles. -Industry consolidation leads to integration of platform with the ski topsheet. -Salomon introduces a plate with two independent(but linked) pods, each anchored to the ski with a transverse pin, with damping pads at the terminal ends. At first this is proprietary to their binding, later a universal model becomes available. (I think this is the Pilot system, but I might be confusing alpine with XC). -FIS continues to regulate stack height, finally arriving at a measure from the heel contact point of the Zepper to the base of the ski with the boot shell in the binding. -Marker/Volkl integrate rails into the top sheet, anchoring their proprietary binding in the center, underfoot. -Other manufacturers follow suit, and shops make out like bandits charging the standard drill-and-screw rate for binding installs that take all of 3 minutes. -As of about 5 years ago, Both Rossignol and Dynastar offer 'race room' plates made of either aluminum, composite, or both, with sliding linkages connecting the toe and heel pieces. I am sure to have missed a few, but hopefully you get the idea. The timeline may be jumbled as well, as I am not a licensed historian, and this is off the top of the head. I think it is generally accepted that plate float is secondary to the plate lift, though this is affected by the measure of the boot sole as compared to the ski length. However, at the World Cup level, almost insignificant differences can make the difference. Then again, some of those skiers would prosper using a pair of pink UGGS screwed to a set of Spongebob rental skis. A common problem for skiers of lesser skill, was (and is) the tendency to get stuck back and inside towards the end of a turn. This is likely due to a change in mechanical advantage offered by the plate, combined with questionable technique (using larger body part to influence edge angles where smaller movements though 'blocked', would be more appropriate). As I mentioned in the other thread, much of the issues with leg fatigue are related to boot geometry. It follows that any reduction in fatigue with a ski plate will be due to the reduction in 'chatter' etc. Of course, once boot geometry is resolved for a given user, skis really don't misbehave.

Thanks for the clip, Geoff. I'm going to incorporate that into early season staff training.

Close enough for government work, Philw. Just to be clear, I was not referring in any way to the ongoing debate over twisting or pedaling. (That all is for taffy and bicycles). Rather, many skiers and riders experience fatigue that has little to do with their overall fitness levels, and more to do with the effects created by their interface with a dynamic platform on a slippery surface. A good example is the complaint among skiers that their quads just aren't fit enough, and that they need more conditioning. Exceeding the limits of muscular endurance in this context has everything to do with the geometric properties of ski boots and bindings, and very little to do with fitness. When a skiers heels are too high, they will move aft to stabilize themselves. This moves the knee joint away from a 'faceted' position, one which provides the maximum amount of support and flexibility with the least amount of attendant muscle activity. This is not to suggest that everyone maintain such a posture indefinitely, but the athlete and the sliding device should be able to achieve and/or pass thorugh a 'rest state' simultaneously. With ease. All too rare an occurrance, I'm afraid. For hardbooting, the analog is insufficient binding setback combined with soft or somewhat sticky snow. The rider moves further back to stabilize, thus premature fatigue. In each case, the issue will not show up while 'carpet surfing' as the skis/snowboard are not dynamic, and as such, the body does not need to stabilize itself against fluctuating and continuous inputs. Similarly, groomed surfaces do little to reveal the limitations of one's equipment. Your link, Phil, is particularly appropriate in that it refers to the limiting effect of undesirable vibrations, which is something the plate systems will work well to reduce or eliminate. This is akin to the reduction one feels when exchanging say, an early Cannondale aluminium bicycle for a current unit constructed of either titanium or carbon fibre. The latter will improve rider performance, all other things remaining equal, because they reduce fatigue by canceling vibration. Maybe, but I suspect not much. Early reports indicate that a rider on a plate can ride faster, longer, through more difficult conditions. Given the current options in boots and bindings, and the trends for their configuration, I figure it will be a while before those pieces of gear face further scrutiny. Point exemplified. Simpler verbiage might have you reading that many problems one may have as a rider will still be there while using a plate, but they will be less noticeable. Also, rider speed may increase without a corresponding improvement in skill. Strangely, I logged in after spending the day up in a bucket with a Motorsagen. That's more associated with arboriculture, but considering the difficulties associated with contemporary timber harvesting, I think the average logger would be able to comprehend what I typed. They tend to be a resourceful bunch. Lumberjacks, on the other hand... Plates and vibration dampeners of all types have been around for a long time in alpine skiing. Some work well in some circumstances, while others are simply a detriment to performance. A few will wreck a promising athlete, but none will truly advance the 'unskilled'.

...And all I want is for the multitude of 'alpine sports enthusiasts' to quit hurting my eyes. That, and a pony. ---- The effect of the plate in the Donek 'peg-leg' video should be clear, even if the modeling is not entirely apt. Many riders have way too much parasitic tension present in their legs, regardless of whether or not the joints exhibit either a surfeit or dearth of flexion. So ironically, the stick legs do represent real legs. Given that a large amount of tension is derived from the many intricacies involved in the boot/binding/body system, a plate will not likely resolve the actual cause of said tension. Rather, it seems that the plate will mitigate much of the dissonance derived from the rigid coupling (via the lower extremities) of the upper body mass to the area of contact with the snow/ice, and all that might entail. In short, it appears the status quo will be moving faster this winter.

You're welcome. So are you doing a full replacement? One of my cohorts split off one side of his tibial plateau, got tired of dealing with the pain, and finally replaced the joint. This is his second full season on it, and he's very happy with the outcome. Incidentally, he's skiing on a non-FIS women's ski; the logical outgrowth of a research project he and I ran this winter. I have been known to shun fashion in favor of function in the boot department, so that was probably me. And I have been teaching here since 1990. When you planed your boot, did you alter the internal boot board, or just the sole? A lot of people add a thicker riser plate under the toe to negate an aggressive ramp. This is generally not as effective as lowering the heel internally, for a number of reasons. Anyway, good luck with the surgery, rehab, et al, and let me know if you have any other questions.