Beckmann AG

Boots have a significant impact on performance, be it on skis or snowboards, so I would say that your question is very much on topic. The perceived need for flex in ski boots can be traced back to three geometric issues: too little or too much forward lean, too much forward angle on the bootboard, or ineffective contact angle between the ski and snow when your bones have settled under load. (To say nothing of funky technique, but that is often related to the first three.) If the boot geometry is not appropriate for your skeletal system, your 'default' location, (tip to tail), on the ski will not be effective, and you will need the additional flex to find a 'better' place to stand. Similarly, if your bones in compression do not allow you to engage the ski in a productive manner, you will need additional flex in the boots to allow greater articulation at the knee, which, in turn, allows for more rotation at the hip, which then permits greater attenuation of edge angle. Of course, then you have no suspension system, but that is another story. So too the obvious parallels to hardbooting... I have no first hand experience with the Dalbello, though I skied on the original Raichle Flexon 5 and its progeny. If you recall, there was a time when the Flexon was used to great effect in the speed events on the World Cup, where snowfeel and glide are of great importance. I have no idea what your Nastar course looks like, but many of those courses favor glide over rapid, 'high load' direction changes. That said, the Krypton may work well, and the softer tongue will present you with the opportunity to develop a better sense of touch. I.e., with less lever at the front, you will become more effective at skiing off the sole of the foot. I have altered the heel height in many an Icon. The original boot board angle is so far out of the ballpark, there isn't even a game on the schedule. In order for each client to be 'balanced', I had to cut down the heel height by at least 3/8" in every case. I do not know if the zepper in the Krypton is easy to alter. Given that your Langes have a boot board angle of between 4.5 and 5 degrees, I would put the Krypton on one foot, the WC 150 on the other, and see how they compare. If you are concerned about the Krypton being too soft for skiing, you may want to consider finding a better ski to match. If Nastar does not have restrictions on ski length/geometry, you would do well to look into a non-FIS womens GS from Rossignol, or the longer length Jr. GS skis from Fischer or Atomic. Under adult feet, these skis favor 'touch' over 'impact', will activate at lower speeds, and encourage glide. Their construction is sufficiently robust to permit use at speed, so long as you ski with finesse.

Originally Posted by Beckmann AG Ok then, try this: There is nothing particularly 'modern' about contemporary snowboard racing technique. Extension into the transition is dated. Extension out of the transition is not. Effective pressure management need not imply 'unweighting', either up or down. It may not be readily apparent, but if you study Lemasters skier montage long enough, you will notice that the skier is allowing his feet to move away from him past both transitions. He is not pushing his torso away from his feet. Look closely at what takes place both before and after images 6 and 14. As with many things, appearances can often be deceiving. Ok, if we are now in accord, here is a corollary: 'Obvious' vertical displacement of a riders/skiers CM (as measured from the plane of the slope) is indicative of inadequate pressure control/management. If you measure, then graph, the distance from that plane to the CM over the course of the run, the athlete expressing the flatter waveform will likely be faster.

Ok then, try this: There is nothing particularly 'modern' about contemporary snowboard racing technique. Extension into the transition is dated. Extension out of the transition is not. Effective pressure management need not imply 'unweighting', either up or down. It may not be readily apparent, but if you study Lemasters skier montage long enough, you will notice that the skier is allowing his feet to move away from him past both transitions. He is not pushing his torso away from his feet. Look closely at what takes place both before and after images 6 and 14. As with many things, appearances can often be deceiving.

There is nothing particularly 'modern' about modern snowboard racing technique. If the 'weighting pattern' you speak of was not a liability, it would still be prevalent on the world cup of skiing. While I can think of a few fast skiers whose movement through a course resembles a claw hammer falling down a flight of stairs, many consistently fast skiers are in fact more 'aesthetic', elastic, and less 'explosive'. I would suggest that those involved in gated snowboard competition simply haven't found a better way to do that which is clearly more effective for the technical events in skiing. Now I may be having a particularly dense evening, but I still don't see how you derived 'hop turns' from anything I said previously. (Unless you are thinking about the step and pivot turn used during GS of the 70's and 80's?) When I keyboard carve, I tend to get chatter off my left shift key. I suspect my pressure application is a bit 'heavy handed'...

To which I say: Beware false prophets. Not sure what initiated your introduction of/ repeated reference to hop turns. If there is something I said in post#77 that caused this, let me know, as I would like to clarify if necessary. Where are you going with the photomontage? Are you offering this up as refutation of something in post#77? If so, could you elaborate? Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't get the relevance.

The role of active flexion and extension is bi-fold: One part as a proper suspension system for isolation of the upper body mass , while the other as a means of pressure/rebound management,rather than generation. Granted, some flexion does allow for a greater range of movement 'across' the board, which can facilitate edge engagement. This is a big help when discretionary articulation at the ankle joint is blocked, either by iffy interface configuration, or by muscle tension. Involving a bunch of flexion/extension early in the learning process is a good way for a rider to get tangled up and standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a rider is not cleanly and consistently on and off the sidecut from one turn to the next, they really don't have much to 'push' against anyway. Introducing movement options out of sequence generally proves to be problematic. Besides, one can do quite a bit of turn shape/size manipulation without involving flexion and extension. Exaggeration of flexion/extension while in a turn to get a sense of 'loading' the board is timing sensitive, which means there are, depending on your viewpoint, either 180 or 360 opportunities to screw it up. Better to feel the board pushing back at you in a context where fewer tasks are to be accomplished. This can be done on a steep pitch making single, deep sidecut arcs down, across, and up out of the fall line to a stop on each end. There is a big difference between riding 'dynamic' and wasteful, and being 'dynamic' and effective. The problem is, the former looks more impressive than the latter, because the latter can often be viewed as 'static'. Good riding is comprised mostly of those things the eye is slow to grasp. I realize that 'getting low' is a pre-occupation for many, and that is all well and good. Unfortunately, this goal often interferes with effective assimilation of effective movements. Look, my wits are dull, and my machete is in the shop. Would you mind hacking a bit of meaning out of this thicket for me? If you're thinking hop turns, then your disagreement comes as no surprise. The role of flexion/extension, particularly in the technical ski events, changed quite a bit with the wholesale adoption of more pronounced sidecuts. For a skier accustomed to straight skis, a phase shift in flexion/extension is required for optimal use of contemporary skis, particularly in a race course. As in hardbooting, it is certainly possible to ski 'modern' shapes without shifting phase. It's simply not as effective. So much of how we ride is dependent on how we set up our gear. Obviously, this will vary based on bone structure, musculature, and chosen goals. Given the geometry of most hardboots, the number of riders who truly benefit from riding 'flat' is fairly small. I hope it proves useful. My keyboard was lonely and demanded some digital stimulation. I was being sincere with both the inquiry, as well as the comment on the avatar.

Have you something equally concise/witty for those who heed their need to denigrate riders of purportedly lesser rippage? And for all concerned parties: Are definitive metrics employed in the determination of rip/not rip? Or is it something akin to pronography; which often eludes precise definition, yet you know it when you see it? For instance, I can successfully open a bag of chips while riding, but I'm not sure that really counts? Incidentally King, from the look of your avatar, you're doing alright for a 'twobie'. (As a freshly minted 'Carver Extraordinaire', I feel I now have license to say such things). Onward... Seraph, In order to vary the radius/shape of a given turn, you need to vary the inputs that brought you into to the turn, as well as cope with the outputs the board sends your way. I will refer you back to the article you posted in this thread: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=29014 Re-read the section on dedicated practice. In a way, you identified part of the solution in the second and third sentence of your initial post. As in the golf analogy, many riders begin their hardboot experience searching for a way to make something/anything work. More often than not, given the restricted range of movement imposed on the rider by rigid boots and questionable binding configuration, this means some articulation in the midsection is required to affect the relationship between the board and the snow. It works, up to a point, but it is far from ideal (unless your goal is to sit on the snow and fill your pockets with same in mid-turn). Moving a large section of your body as a means of turn initiation is slow, not particularly accurate, and does not leave much room for error, in either timing or range. And at some point, this mass needs to move away from the inside of the turn before the next turn can commence. Lastly, moving the hips/butt inside (and forward) on the heelside invariably moves too much pressure towards the nose of the board, often at a time when said pressure should be moving back towards the tail to release the board from the turn. Unfortunately, a rider reliant upon such midsection articulations will then be reliant, primarily, on the 'crossover' mode of edge change. This requires a fair amount of time, and area, to pull off. This often stands as a limiting factor for the pitch and trail which the rider may utilize. (I realize that many choose to ride this way, but they ultimately limit themselves by doing so; and by gaining proficiency with this mode of riding, thoroughly ingrain the associated movement patterns. This makes adoption of alternative, more versatile, movements difficult.) Change of line, etc, is much easier when most of your actual mass is stacked up over the board, in line with the loads supplied by the centripetal acceleration of the turning board. Returning to the notion and tenets of 'dedicated practice', I would suggest trying to find a way to bias your weight to the heelside edge (as this is the turn in the photo) without hanging your rear end so far off to the side. Inside, on the carpet, you may find that it is possible to bias your weight to the heel edge, (which is a pre-courser to tilting the board), using directed movements of your ankles (inversion/eversion), slight, passive knee flexion, facilitated by a bit of rotational movement at your femoral heads. Weight the rear heel before the front heel. More often then not, this will allow you to make the movement towards the heel edge with both feet simultaneously, rather than front foot first. (Such simultaneity tends to reduce the propensity for skid on the heelside, as the rider stands more 'centered'). These are small movements, and, as such, are fairly easy to attenuate while stationary, or in motion. Conversely, if you hang yourself off to the side as in the photo while at rest, sans momentum, you will likely tip over. Try this first without boots, then try it on your bindings without boots, then try it with boots on. As you switch modes, look for the ways in which your chosen setup interferes with easy movement from edge to edge, and work to remove said obstructions. You touched upon some of this lower extremity stuff in post #43, but the photo indicates a lack of successful assimilation. Assuming you can tilt the board with smaller body parts, you stand a good chance of starting the turn earlier, which means you can impart more tilt to the board, which brings the turn around quicker, und so weite. In this day and age, with so many quality boards to choose from, angulation should be considered a byproduct, not a means to an end. Back on snow, if you find you have to sit into the turn, at least try to tilt the board before you do so. You should not need to flex/extend to begin a turn, at least not on (what appears to be in the photo) gentle terrain. Similarly, pressure underfoot should develop as the board tries to affect your line of travel, not because you are actively pushing on it. If your ski racing days were pre K2 Four, the movements you developed then will stand as a liability now, as your flexing and extending will be 180 degrees out of phase. Many riders provide way too much in the way of pressuring movements by way of flexion extension; such inputs generally hinder, rather than hasten, progress. Incidentally, the behavior of your hands and head are counterbalancing the mass of your midsection, providing some semblance of stability. By all means, pay attention to what your hands are doing and where they are going while moving from turn to turn. Trying to 'fix' their location, however, is largely a fools errand. When the movements of the lower extremities are appropriate, so too will be the behavior of the upper extremities. As a lack of peripheral vision can have an effect on how/when you move, make a few turns with your goggles up. Do you normally stand a little bowlegged, or is that an illusion? If the former, you may wish to cant your bindings inward slightly. Good luck on your new board...

No, you don't. Read close, look closer. The appellation 'Tuckerman's', like the T-bar, is a fallacy. (Sorry, TT) Stevo, what's the story on your mid-season boot swappage? Wardrobe/topsheet conflict or what?

Don't want much, don't need much, don't have much. On the front boot, just tongue compression. Rigid backwards. On the rear foot, just a bit more forward, also rigid backwards. Medially/laterally, maybe 5mm at each boot cuff. Articulation of the foot/ankle required for turn initiation/completion should be primarily inversion/eversion. Neither requires much dorsi/plantar flexion. Perhaps you are the 'better' rider? Judging by your two most recent avatar photos, there is the distinct possibility that your bindings are set up in a respectable manner, and that your movements are proportional to the task at hand. When those criteria are met, 'stiff' is an asset, not a liability. Rider weight notwithstanding, calling the TD2 'stiff' is simply amusing. A boot in the correct anatomical dimensions will often feel softer than the equivalent boot of the wrong size, for no other reason than the contours of the boot match the contours of your body, and they 'move' more as a unit. In your case, the shell plastic may also be different.

As you can see, the arrangement of that T-bar with regard to the slope could be seen as 'Antipodal'. Australians, et al, have to put up with a lot of 'upside down' jokes and references; thus the umbrage?

Originally Posted by BobD After that, remember Jack's "feeding the dollar bill into the vending machine" analogy, and slowly shift back through the turn. Sometimes, when you get to a party too early, all you have is a bunch of loud drunkards that need to talk about themselves. At great length. Later, when the din has died down, and the buzz has 'castra ponere', you may find yourself immersed in fairly interesting, productive conversations. Not that I would know anything about parties, mind you, but I suspect that scenario is plausible. While there are any number of things that can be attributed to me, I am reasonably certain the aforementioned analogy is not one of them. The first time I heard that one, it was credited to Bob Jenney. Like parties, I tend to avoid vending machines.

I don't think I would call it painted, more of a dark translucent tone. It appears there is a heavy gel-coat over the entire topsheet as well. Maybe it's 'Fauxbon'? Fauxbon-fribe? Several layers at that. Either way, a very fine weave. The reissues appear to have only one sheet. When the glue lets go, I snap that section off. Good saw for snow analysis in an avvy pit. So realistically, how many protos would you have to build to determine the 'correct' recipe?

I realize a gentleman, on principle, tends not to reveal such things, but what is your current weight?

On my original, it appears there is a fine weave overlay(0/90) over the carbon (which appears to be more than one layer). This overlay looks more like fiberglas than it does carbon...? i'll support that notion. Will this version incorporate a 45deg weave, or just the 0/90?

Perhaps, but I suspect I would have liked the board a bit more if the grippers were in the right place. I had already moved the bindings forward twice, in 1cm increments, and each move improved the ride characteristics. If I had equal footing on both boards, the comparison would have been more valuable, at least for me. Looking back, the longer sidecut does explain a few things. You may have spoken to this elsewhere, but should I assume the sidecut was not radial? From your perspective as a builder/materials manipulator, what function(s) (ideally) should the carbon butterfly serve? Despite comments to the contrary, I find both the originals and the reissues to be fairly versatile, so long as I match my inputs to the prevailing snow conditions. You appear to be part way there already, so you might as well finish the journey...

22nd annual 'REGGAE-FEST'

As of 3:30 EST, at least 6 'Fake-afarians' have accumulated around the village, resplendent in tri-color beanies w/attached f'redlocks. Looking ahead, base maintenance anticipates picking up at least several inches of litter by Saturday PM, more expected on Sunday.

In light of recent events in both China and West Virginia, fewer operators 'safely' ensconced in large machines might be viewed as the responsible thing to do. The costs, in terms of human suffering, and employer overhead, are generally reduced with fewer 'boots on (or in) the ground'.

Thanks, Bruce. Of the numerous 158's I have ridden, those with 17-19mm of camber seemed to ride better than those with less (say, 8-13mm). I had the opportunity, over a few days time, to put some hours on the yellow proto back in February, and while it was a solid ride, it seemed as though something was 'lacking'. In literal back to back comparisons with my current (admittedly flogged) 158, the proto seemed a bit less tractable, and wanted 'larger' rider inputs. Some of this can be attributed to the location of the bindings, as I did not have the time to fully realize the optimum setback for my weight (alas, I had to give it back). While the proto felt more 'clamped' to the hard-pack (in a good way, mind you), I had a better sense of where my feet were with the 158, and I felt I could re-arrange my base of support with less effort. Anyway, I am interested to see how the glass version compares. Keep up the good work.

Would you mind providing a more exact camber measurement for the glass Angrry? And how does that value compare to the yellow metal proto? Them there is just plain ol' crazy talk.

...which fell atop ~1"(+-) of clear, solid crust. Most of the snow that fell on the upper mountain blew off into the trees. Spillway bumps were closed today; ice bombs falling off the chairs and haul rope. Birches bent to the ground, hemlocks broken from the ice load/wind. Comp, Sluice,NG were tilled; bank-run over rockwell 65. Lower mountain was fly-tape by 2:30. Should be interesting this weekend, exercise caution off-piste/front face.

This is my twentieth season riding in ski boots. Lange ZR. Lange X9r. Lange XR9r. Lange XZero9r. Tecnica Diablo 130. Rossignol equivalent of Lange WC150. Ski boot use began as a convenient means of changing equipment, then morphed into a long-term study to determine exactly which movements were necessary to ride a snowboard. Quality ski boots provide the following advantages: If you look hard enough, you can get a good anatomical match for your foot. Liners tend to be of better quality, and last longer. Flex/support tends to remain consistent over a wide temperature range. Snowfeel is generally enhanced due to the lack of additional soft plastic/rubber toe and heel pads. Contact between boot and binding is often enhanced for the above reason. The toes and heels do not break off in normal use (with the possible exception of older Nordicas and Tecnicas). Cuff rivets and 'cant' mechanisms tend not to blow out. The 'zepper' is often removeable, which facilitates fine tuning of toe/heel height without altering binding settings. They last for quite awhile. They are economically viable, and readily available. Ski boots have a few disadvantages: Not Intec compatible. Overlap closures are tough to get into/out of in cold weather. The overlap will eventually crack on the rear boot. A lot of attention needs to be paid to foot support, boot binding configuration and location. Not all ski boots are created equal. Ironically, some of the previous (and past) posts have mentioned the use of Tecnica boots. Tecnicas are, by far, the worst boot for performance use. The combination of plastic formulation, liner materials, and the use of the AVS system conspire to rob the rider of their sense of touch. This has been an issue at least as far back as the TNT/Explosion series. I rode for two seasons in a pair, in the name of research and frugality, and I wish I could get that time back. Ski boots are far too responsive for the way most riders want to ride. 'Dropping the hip' and 'driving with the knees' sends too much input to the board and right out the other side. Not to mention the jarring feedback sent back to the rider. Tough on the joints, to say the least. As Sean mentioned, there should be some compliance in the system. I get my compliance through a selective and controlled articulation of the hips, knees and ankles. I find that I do not need much more boot flex than is provided by the compression of the padding in the boot tongues. As in skiing, if you need a lot of flex in the boot to get the job done, there is a problem somewhere else in the system. The 'ugly' flex controls on my boots provide medial/lateral support where I need it, and not where I don't; they prevent twisting of the board while 'in the cut', and unimpeded dexterity for the moments in between. Despite the overall rigidity of my chose interface, I tend not to break stuff. The last time I broke a bail was back in '96? (Perhaps I am not aggressive enough, or I'm insufficiently hardcore/professional?) As to the very few boards that died, they had it coming anyway. I would not recommend the use of ski boots for the GP. However, if you are dissatisfied with the current offerings, and have the time, tenacity, and curiosity, I would not discourage the pursuit. You might reach the majority conclusion, or you might make a few interesting discoveries.

Upon reflection, I can see how the last sentence of my previous post could be read as being condescending. Sorry about that. And also about your respective injuries. That having been said, without quality foot support, adjustments made to the boot/binding interface are based upon what 'feels right' with a collapsed foot. Foot splay determined without foot support will often feel wrong once support is added. The same can be said of cant and lift. It is certainly possible to be precise/meticulous without being accurate. (Or vice-versa?). So while any number of forum members may be meticulous about setting up their gear, there is also the possibility that such efforts may not be truly effective. Carpet carving, for instance, can be misleading in that it does not account for the dynamic nature of the snowboard in motion. So the posture/configuration that feels comfortable in a static context may lead to untenable loads on the joints once the board 'powers up'. Similarly, a setup that works on the groom may lead to disaster when the snow goes clear or deep.

You can prevent this with gear by taking pains to ensure that you can ride with the absolute least amount of tension on your joints at all times. Tension in this case can be either muscular, such as when several limb segments are tied together while working toward a particular outcome; or the result of leverage, such as when the rear foot is excessively dorsiflexed, placing undue stress on the achilles tendon and ankle assembly. Another example is excessive inward canting of the front foot, which, while it may make a wide stance somewhat more comfortable, will also serve to collapse the ankle joint medially while under load. Inward cant of the front foot, as well as poor cuff alignment, can cause the tip of the board to bite harder than the tail on a heelside turn, which may lead to a nasty speed wobble, the brunt of this may be taken by the ankle if it is not properly supported by the boot. Quality foot support can help, in that a supported foot will often contribute to a more relaxed posture, and also provide a better 'read' on what is going on down there, which in turn will reduce 'nervous' tension through the lower extremities. One problem with alpine boards is that it is possible to capture a fairly large amount of energy with each turn, energy which can be damaging, as well as useful. This tends not to occur with softboots, due in part to the propensity for 'leakage' with that interface. With regard to your current injury, Bubba, it sounds like you encountered another situation whereby the board was riding you, rather than the other way 'round. Set your gear up better, and circumstances of this nature can be avoided.

If I read correctly and this is a 'loop-out'/'banana peel' situation, the smarty pants answer is that your base of support went back up the hill under your center of mass. This is often a problem for entry level riders when they are on a board that is too stiff for their weight, they are mounted too far towards the tail, or their bindings are biased too far to the heelside of the board. Most likely because the feedback off the boot cuffs let you know when you are approaching the point of no return, and/or, once you land on the cuffs, you have a bigger handle with which you can haul the board back underneath you. Cut up snow exacerbates the problem because the board can sink in a bit, 'locking' the edge, and the softer snow allows the board to bend a bit more, which is akin to putting a little more draw on the slingshot.