Beckmann AG

Front foot, back foot, or both? In no particular order: You need better foot support. Your current footbeds are over posted. You have improper cuff alignment. Your feet may be somewhat hypermobile. You may have some curvature to the distal ends of your tibias, which complicates cuff alignment. Your medial ankle bone/navicular region needs more clearance. The proximal ends of your fifth metatarsal bones may need additional clearance. You need a larger splay between your feet (Somewhat related to lack of proper foot support). Your feet are too far apart. Your bindings are not canted, or canted improperly. You may have too much forward lean in your boots. You may need to change your diet and/or fluid intake. You did something in a previous life for which you are currently suffering, in which case, all bets are off. I may think of something else later.

It's just a nasty little bench-top unit. A good used B-port would have been cheaper, but I couldn't get it through the door, and the floor wouldn't handle it. I console myself with the notion that a small part of the purchase price helped fund the Beijing Olympics. And I'm not good hero material, so you had best look elsewhere... Well, for instance, You're not presently in my living room. Nor is the LHC. An old photo, taken from the couch. Plants and cat carrier have been moved. Bicycles and skis in the rafters not visible. My other shop is a bit more interesting. Regarding brass: Brass inserts don't strip themselves. Brass is a lot easier to repair than stainless. To avoid damaging brass inserts, first remove the ham from the fists, take a deep breath, and proceed with finesse. Come to think of it, that last bit also holds true for hardbootin'.

Maybe. The next level in boarding will come about from effort applied to the following three issues: 1. Accessibility. 2. A complete understanding of bio-mechanical issues; and a better integration of the human element with the mechanical elements. 3. Abandonment of the parallel format. If alpine riding is to progress, it needs more participants. At present, the equipment is hard to find, hard to set up, and especially for the novice, hard to use. This is an obvious barrier to involvement. There are few available resources for quality instruction, coaching, or training. When a prospective rider/wannabe racer has a concern, there should be available a sound explanation for why they cannot do what they think they should be able to do, and a solution close at hand. Several key movement options available to top level ski racers are not available to the hardbooter, and not simply because the latter has both feet attached to the same platform. Part of the problem is equipment and its configuration, the other part is based on what currently passes for 'technique'. With a larger number of participants, eventually one would see the next paradigm shift in movement, a shift away from the present 'hunker and skip' towards something with more finesse and fluidity. If members of this forum have difficulty identifying with snowboard racing,(and apparently, they do), then you can't hold out much hope that such an activity will generate much interest among the general public. The parallel format does little to challenge beyond consistency and endurance. A return to the single course would allow for far greater variability in the set, which in turn would challenge the rider to ride with greater versatility of movement. This would certainly enhance the visual appeal. Not to mention that the effective use of the entire trail has far more relevance to the recreational rider/would-be competitor than a highly processed dual arena. Better isolation plates have simply allowed the present generation of riders to do what they do with less punishment. While effective plates attached to high end boards are nice, and technologically attractive, neither will address the more important issues involved with advancing this sport. In fact, if both items are necessary to be a successful rider, then they may serve to slow, and not hasten, the growth of the sport. The results indicate, among other things, that JJA has likely racked up far more hours doing what he does than any other competitor. That alone is probably worth more than his plate system.

Rather, for the majority of skiers, 'modern' shapes have made less-than-effective movements somewhat more effective. Modern shapes allow high-end athletes to do what they previously did, but to greater effect. This is somewhat analogous to recent developments in alpine board shape/construction. The divide between the average skier and the top level skier is such that, if you looked at the musculo-skeletal activity of both groups, and the actual utilization of the skis, you would see two distinctly different 'sports'. The same cannot really be said of hardbooters. High-end skiing may well provide the path for the advancement of alpine snowboarding...

BlauB, I don't ride one of those things, but; Difficulty initiating toeside at slow speed in deep snow can often come down to uneven leverage ratios between toe and heelside. It is harder to 'get over the hump' with minimal momentum. I realize that you want to exclude setup from this, but ultimately, many of our movements are dictated by how we relate to the board. Deep snow and bombproof ice reveal the deficiencies of our chosen configurations. Offset your rear binding to the toeside, and, If your boots have speedlaces, skip the top set of hooks on the rear boot. (That is assuming you are using softboots. If hardboots, then combination of offset, easier boot flex ((looser upper buckle)), slight outward cant.) Doesn't take much to make a difference. When you see beginners bending at the waist on a toeside, with knees locked out, that's a leverage thing. (Most of the time, the default for most rental bindings is too far to the heelside.)

Bobbybt, Don't have a facebook acct. Can you email direct to me?

Brad, I have what appears to be the same board. (No indication of flex rating, so who knows?) I ride/rode that board with front binding centered on rear set of front inserts, total width 46cm. And the important part, I weigh between 175-185 without boots on. ~2.7 toe lift ~1.8 outward cant. 60 angle front. For what it is worth, on the 158 classic, I was riding the forward set of four on the front, with center disc all the way back.

A nice clear photo of the damage would serve as a good start.

(Ha)3 No. Nothing so exotic. But I do have a pair of something that a few competent skiers have said 'wow' to.

I suppose I could, provided the inserts are not completely trashed. Sounds like a good combo package: Come visit scenic Sugarloaf/USA; leave Madd, return Gladd.

Find me next time you are up. I've got something she might like to try. And Metrons are great... for Cricket, or paddling your Old Town down the Allagash (can do double duty as a camp axe).

No big thing, really, so long as the boot geometry is right, and you use an appropriate ski. I frequently teach high level alpine skiing on my telemark stuff. (Garmont Voodoo, G3 Targa, Dynastar 64 Jr. GS) In a similar vein, I wouldn't want to try to rail a turn on my snowboard in a typical pair of hardboots. Each foot has two distinct points of contact: The heel, and the forefoot. When alpine skiing on telemark skis, I ski off the soles of my feet, which is to say, I'm not leaning on, nor levering the plastic to provide input to the skis. With good boot geometry, a capable skier can alter the pressure along the length of the ski with great effect without flexing into the boot. I use the same approach on my snowboard. If your board is well matched to your weight, and you are set up properly, you shouldn't need to make significant movements from one foot to the other, nor should you need to lean on the plastic. Of course, needs and wants are often two completely different things...

I have done this repair about 8 or 10 times using the RECOIL brand insert. (To repair previous damage. I know how not to strip things). Kit part number 35060, available from Fastenal et al. I use a TiN coated 1/4" end mill to core out the damage, rather than a drill bit, to ensure proper depth. I ground the end off of the insert tap to convert it from a starter to a bottoming style tap. Both operations done on the notorious milling machine in my living room (not CNC, by the way), to ensure mill and tap alignment. If you cannot remove the boogered Time-Sert without further damage to the brass, you can buy a snowboard insert repair kit from Sports Tech Ltd, out of VT. 800-877-7776 Part number d1-727 $42 dollars as of the 2003 catalog. Not sure exactly what is in the kit, but it looks like a coring bit, two inserts, and two screws. These appear to be PTex backed. Product is branded by Snoli, so may also be available from other back shop retailers. Maybe post a picture of the damage?

NBC doesn't like me, so I'll just guess. Plates can be a liability as well as an asset. Stack height became regulated following the untimely death of Ulrike Maier. (Video available on Youtube). Plates can delay response time between skier and ski. Just as a plate can provide the skier with a bigger lever between their foot and the ski, so too can the ski gain mechanical advantage over the skier. As of a few years ago, stack height is measured inside the heel pocket of the boot, with liner and footbed installed. Combined measure of footbed, liner, zepper, shell, and add-on sole plate must not exceed maximum dimension. Location of plate can influence effect. Originally, plates went only under the binding. Rules changed, so plates were then added to soles of boots. Rules change again, so thinner plates go inside boots. Rules change yet again to determine absolute measure. The more junk you put between yourself and the ski, the less you feel. In downhill, sense of touch translates to glide, so if the course is not particularly steep, and does not require the extra leverage/clearance needed for the course, the racer may determine that less stack is better/faster. Given that each competitor has scads of ski configurations to choose from, each probably has a setup in mind for any given course. In the slalom, faster feet are more important than clearance/leverage. Loads are higher, but shorter duration. My guess is that you may see something a bit different for GS/SuperG Merely conjecture on my part, and bear in mind that I might not be a reliable narrator.

Indy car hits wall, loses tire, spins, driver shaken but ok. I looked at that for a bit, and drew the following conclusions. 1.Brim of helmet contacts edge. 2.Helmet pulls head back, providing clearance. 3. Departure of helmet dissipates just enough shock, and provides enough time delay, that face slaps vert, not edge. This is a bit like shock protection strips used for climbing anchors. In this case, the strap following the anterior contour of his melon slows the removal of the helmet just enough to reposition his head, but not enough to snap his neck. 4. Boo-boo is abrasion, rather than contusion. 5. Good thing he rides loose. 6. Good thing he wore his helmet loose. The loose helmet is a bit like the notion that not wearing a seatbelt will allow one to be tossed clear of the car in the event of an impact. Sometimes yes, most times, no. Which is not to say that the loose helmet thing is/was intentional. Just fortunate. In this case. Instead of a medalist, he could have been a turnip.

Jack, Post a picture, and I'll give you an 'ignorant' guess.

Tough to get much fore-aft movement with a 17" stance... So all we have to do, J, is figure out how to clone some of the 'Originals', combine that creation with 'better' gear, and then snowboard racing will take right off. I worked a J-0 event many years ago with Jeremy Jones forerunning the GS. Thinking about his run still gives me chills. That was before his technique got messed with.

Many, many skiers brave the cold in jeans. Faded jeans. Straight leg and boot cut. And flannel shirts too. (Incidentally, whenever I read your screen name, I think of pasta...)

After all, despite the crash, both feet did make it across the finish line... I remember a conversation many years ago with M. Fawcett, where he referred to the PJ's as "fish hooks". Sound about right?

From a cursory reading of your responses to my responses to your comments, (which I quoted in full for clarity) a few things come to mind: 1. Some people take the 'buffet' approach to reading. 2. You missed my point. Which is: You made a few statements on competitive clothing which seemed fairly silly and slightly ill-informed. I was amused, and felt compelled to type. I don't know where you get the idea that I am pro-spandex or anti-progress. I am in favor of the right tools for the job, 'style' be damned. I am not advocating the use of speed suits for BX, but it would certainly make sense to have some sort of standard beyond a seemingly arbitrary 'pinch test'. (Does the FIS provide an official 'pincher' for each event? One with Homologated fingers?) 'Style' makes for an equally poor metric. Suits for speed events must be certified to standards of air permeability, as well as for sliding friction on snow. BX outfits should pass similar standards, for both fairness and safety. If you had a greater appreciation of high-end skiing, you would realize that, among other things, metal has been an integral part of ski construction for quite a long time. The same is true of riser/isolation plates. There have been several clear paradigm shifts/innovations in movement/technique in the last 20 years. Same thing with competition clothing and armor. Most of these latter advances have been symbiotic, with athletes driving technology, then technology driving the athletes, in a continuous loop. Snowboarding may seem to be doing relatively well, at least until you widen your focus a bit. True innovation in snowboarding, be it BX or PGS,etc., would be an effective suspension system. Now that would be real progress. Regardless, "No Worries".

Not good for TV? Or maybe because it is difficult for the spectator to get a clear idea of who is 'winning' at any point in time. Perhaps it requires a slightly different skill set? Back in '92, Sugarloaf/USA hosted a pro-am event, with a super-G on Narrow Gauge. Full length, from the top of Spillway east to the bottom of Comp Hill. The course had full panels, and was set as though for a typical FIS regulation (skiing) SG. In other words, it was not a 'sidecut' course. This event was well-attended, and the only guys struggling on the course were those riding Skwals. And of course, the amateurs. I fore-ran the Super-G on a PJ 6.2 with Variplates, and it was a hoot. The bindings gave out the following day... Dual slalom was held on the entire bottom half of Comp Hill. Again, set with full height gates to FIS standards. If I am not mistaken, the US Open at Stratton used to feature a Super-G as well. That was a different time, and it would be nice if some of that could come back, but I don't see it happening any time soon, for a variety of reasons. Unless I read incorrectly, Anja Paerson took the bronze in the combined, so she must be OK.

Speed suits are not terribly expensive, and provide a pretty good bang for the buck. I'm sure that for some would-be future champions, eating regularly might be considered an extra expense. Speed suits are widely used in daily training by skiers for Slalom and GS, as well as downhill and superG. Speed suits are available from a number of manufacturers, so you can certainly find one tailored to your physique. While watching the women's 15k freestyle xc race the other day, just prior to the BX, I found myself thinking; "These women are fast, athletic, skilled, and the movement over snow is really intricate and a joy to behold. The only thing missing is a flannel Pajama top, or maybe some distressed denim..." Oh,wait a second, speed suits are associated with various forms of, GASP, skiing. The Establishment. Can't have that... If I am not mistaken, in the early days of BX, speed suits were ok. (This was before the moto-cross look went big). Similarly, speed suits were common on the early DH bike circuit as well. No doubt changes were made in the name of public image. Speed suits have a way of making non-athletes look non-athletic, and that is hardly inclusive. Not so fast, if you will pardon the obvious pun. While a speed suit reduces drag, this reduction in drag can have the unintended consequence of magnifying mistakes. So, in a way, speed suits can make a given course even more challenging. Is it progress when BX and such are dominated by a one or two manufacturers? Isn't that just a bit NASCAResque? It seems that competitive skiing has progressed far more than competitive snowboarding in the past 20 years. Stuffy image notwithstanding.

I posted a few photos of one 'large calf' solution a few weeks back. I think the thread title is 'general help with boots'.

Local boy done good!

There may well be some benefit to such pads, be it actual, or merely perceived. Sometimes, one is as good as the other... The point is, a heightened sense of touch, via enhanced contact between you and the area of effect can be equated to 'free speed', in that accurate movements interfere with glide, etc., to a lesser extent than inaccurate movements. Generally speaking, accurate movements require a light, not heavy, 'hand'. E.g., one tends not to swat flies with a framing hammer. Our ability to remain 'upright' in our activity of choice is also dependent upon our sense of touch; interfere with the feedback loop between foot and brain, and reaction to an ever-changing surface slows perceptibly. Particularly when the visual reference point is compromised, as when the light goes flat, or you move from light into shadow. Muscle tension is also directly related to how 'stable' we are on our feet. Again, a compromised connection between brain and surface creates some degree of 'uncertainty' which in turn, leads to tension. This effect is a bit like using an overly-heavy weight of oil in the front end of your MX bike. Softboots are to dial-up, as hardboots with rubber sole blocks are to DSL, as ski boots (assuming a monolithic sole structure, and quality plastic), are to broadband. Or something like that. 'Acoustic transparency' for lack of a better term, should be taken seriously by those who go fast, or wish to go faster.