Beckmann AG

FSguy "...why are ski racers faster?" Perhaps they are more effective in their use of the equipment? Snappy photomontages notwithstanding, a fast time in a course often comes down to those things that are either fairly hard to see, or somewhat abstract.

Not too long ago, I was asked (Though not by TT) where a person could find imagery that would help them become a better alpine snowboarder. Here is one example. 1.Figure out what she is doing, and how she is doing it. 2. Figure out how you can most closely replicate those findings, given the limitations of your equipment. 3. Disregard, for the most part, the text in the video.

...Bordy, and what did I say to upset you so? Given that your responses to my posts had very little to do with said posts, perhaps you have some other agenda? Not sure I was espousing any particular theory... If you regard fairly coherent explanations as 'crap', then I suppose I should take that evaluation as a compliment? If so, thanks.

No. At least not easily.

That's a bit heavy, don't you think? Is your wrist Ok after typing that? lonbordin, Seeking knowledge hardly qualifies you as a killjoy. Why would you suppose that a more solid interface between boot and board would not provide a better ride? Do you pad the keys on your keyboard to negate errant keystrokes, or do you learn how to type? A snowboard is analogous to a computer, in that it will respond predictably to specific inputs. The problem is, most users are not aware of the inputs they are providing, intentional or otherwise. The industry is heading toward a more forgiving interface largely because voices in the market are clamoring for such. If you make the boot/binding interface more forgiving, you make the sport more inclusive. You make the sport more inclusive, the market thrives. Not necessarily a bad thing. The balancing mechanism of the body is extremely sensitive, and very effective, so long as it can operate within its effective range of movement. Ideally, while standing, you will balance with small movements of your feet. If you cannot balance off of your feet, you will balance from your knees. If you cannot balance with your knees, you will balance with your hips and so on. The further from the ground you go, the less accuracy you have, as you are moving larger and larger limb segments. So, if the intuitive movements of your feet are lost in cushy liners, rubber sole blocks,and flexible bindings, you have effectively negated your ability to remain upright using a system that you have been honing ever since you learned to walk. And then you must make use of the next best thing, further up the chain. Doesn't make much sense to me. On the other hand, very few have the time, resources or inclination involved with setting up a truly effective interface between rider and board. It's a system, and all pieces must be in place. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate; rather, just differing opinions tied to their respective goals.

ursle, Anything that contours to the underside of the foot without causing pain is a step in the right direction. Better contour means more data collection points and a tighter feedback loop. Contouring is one thing, support is another, and this is where most custom footbeds come up short. Most simply do not address the mobility of the bones in the forefoot to the tolerances to which the human balance mechanism functions. To do so takes a good cast, fairly dense posting material, time, and experience: these criteria do not fit well with the business plan of the average retailer. The quick and dirty way to see if your footbeds are doing anything at all, is to stand on one of them, one footed,(as though you have a ski on the lifted foot, hands hanging at your sides, looking straight ahead) on a hard level surface. If the muscles in your lower leg and foot twitch about less while on the footbed than with nothing underfoot, then you have gained at least something. If not, you have wasted your money. When a footbed is doing its job properly, there should be almost no movement whatsoever, I.E., radio silence. If there is movement, it should be slight and more or less symmetric in origin. I do what is called a semi-weighted cast. This seems to be the best means of accounting for the mobility of the bones in the foot without muscular interference, while still providing an accurate contour map of the plantar surface. Telemark and Nordic skiing footbeds get tweaked the most,as far as fine tuning, due to the involvement of the forefoot. Weighted casting generally captures the contour of a collapsed foot, and can sometimes be compromised by reflexive muscular activity in the foot. Non-weighted casting often provides too much arch fill, and requires secondary forming of the forefoot to account for fat pad expansion under load. This often compromises forefoot support. If you want more information, just ask. I'm not a fan of the Surefoot product (assuming they are still using the Amfit system), but I am certain that there are many out there who love them. lonbordin, Yes, they are stiffer. I gave a pair to Chuck Norris and he sent them back. (Along with a tear-stained hanky).

Fin and Jeff Caron were kind enough to leave a few clamps behind after ECES 04. I liked features of both, but was not satisfied with either. Obviously, they can't go about making one-offs at the drop of a hat, so I made the parts myself. To answer your question, Lonbordin, I proved to my own satisfaction that the TD would ride better with a thicker intermediate plate, and greater contact area between the boot and the binding. With the CATEK version, I suspected that a bail with a shoulder bolt pivot would ride better than the one piece bail of the original. It does. The CATEK plate has two more set screws than stock, as I had to make one complete turn of the rotary table to do four, and two more holes seemed like a good idea at the time. Chewy, They are not so much stiff as they are transparent. These parts are not for sale, but anybody that wants to make the trip to the remains of the Rebel base on Hoth is welcome to try them. Geoff and Jack: Thanks for the free PR. Other than the engine being put in 'backward', what's so scary about a SAAB? Scary is trying to service a modern German car. ...And I didn't surface. I landed. With regard to footbeds, Chewy, most orthopaedist-built footbeds are intended for dynamic gait, and as such may not be suitable for skiing or snowboarding. Part of this is due to design philosophy, and the other part concerns the method of casting and construction.

Built for proof of concept.