staples156

It's a carving drill/training exercise: http://alpinesnowboarder.com/the-norm-part-i/

Specs are in my profile, I don't know my stance width off hand. 194cm, about 95kg I didn't alter the flex, so it's whatever Sean thought it should be based on my input. No idea, I was too cheap to consider the secret construction at the time. When you try the 0° back foot angle, bring tools with you and don't be afraid to adjust it throughout the day. If 0° feels ok, in a few runs you could probably try +6° or something pretty easily.

I'll add another vote for trying out a double positive, high binding angle stance on your current board and going from there. Probably a good idea to leave your front foot alone and just bring your back foot to a positive stance, get used to that, then start moving to high angles. This YouTube has some good information that may be helpful: If you're able to get used to a double positive stance, you won't need as wide of a board as badly. I have the roughly the same foot size as you and am a similar build and I've never booted out with my 29.7cm waist Flux, likely because my stance is +36/+30.

No idea on the secret construction, the normal flux was a bit of a stretch in terms of price for me, so I didn't consider spending even more money.

I'm about 194cm tall, although I don't think that has a huge effect on which board to ride (despite what most people told me 20 years ago). Sidecut radius is really more of a personal preference. I find that the 8.5-10m on my Flux is good most of the time, but occasionally I wish I had a bit bigger of a radius. But that's based on my riding style, skill, and local terrain. You may have very different needs. If you go to the link below, I think you can answer some questions and it'll direct you somewhat, then you can also use the contact form to talk to someone at Donek that can help you pick the specs for your needs. https://www.donek.com/get-started/

Another vote for "whatever fits your head best" as the most important criteria. If you try helmets on in person, bring your goggles to make sure they fit together well. If you also need new goggles too, go to a store that sells a wide range of both and try on lots. It's generally easier to buy a helmet and goggles from the same company to help ensure a good match, but I'm sure you could find a mixed brand combo that would work as well.

I'd recommend just contacting Donek directly, telling Sean what you're looking for in a board and seeing where he steers you. I did that originally thinking I'd get an Incline, but he said a Flux would be better for the kind of riding I do and also helped tweak the specs for me. Overall I love my Flux, it absolutely rips. Keep in mind that the Flux has a long effective edge relative to its length, so it'll ride like a longer board than it's length might imply. I have similar size feet to you and one thing to note is that my Flux should probably be wider in a perfect world, but it's the widest that Sean could make it at the time (I can't remember if I maxed out his equipment or just the blanks he had available at the time). Some of the other specs did affect that max waist width, so probably good to talk that kind of stuff over with Sean since he'll know what his limits are and what specs will affect the width. Having said that, I've never booted out with the Flux I have, so I can't complain. If you're curious, my board specs, boots, bindings, etc are on my profile.

Yes, that's correct. That's assuming the loads and stance widths both stay the same. Also assumes that the inserts are centered on the board. My gut says that for most boards with only mild stance offset, it isn't worth correcting for, but you could technically do it (the math is just more annoying). If you're curious about the math, go here and scroll down to the "Simply Supported, Center Load" case and look at the formula for δ_max. It's not technically the right case, but the math is much simpler and therefore easier to understand the general trend, which is mostly what matters here. The E and I variables are the two related to stiffness and are technically what's of interest here. You could solve the equation for an E*I term and compare that between boards, but I wouldn't. Given that this is just an approximation, I think it makes more sense to just use the equation to spot that deflection varies with L^3 and then just use L^3 to normalize the deflection that you measure.

My first thought was also to move the supports to the ends of the effective edge. If you do that, the deflection should scale with the cube of the distance between supports*. So if you rerun your tests with the supports at the ends of the effective edge, then divide the deflection by the distance between supports cubed (make sure to use the same units for all measurements), that will give you a number that should allow you to compare stiffnesses between boards of different effective edge lengths. This will be a very small number, so scientific or engineering notation will be your friend here. As with all mathematical models, it's relationship to reality is questionable, but hopefully the error is the same across all tests so you can at least use it to show the general trend and compare one board's stiffness relative to another one. *This is assuming the board acts as a simply supported beam with two point loads, and ignores quite a few complicating factors, so it probably won't be totally accurate.

If I'm understanding right, you could add more forward lean to at least your front highback. I'd start there and just crank it to whatever the max setting is (it'll either work or then you'll know what too much forward lean is). The highback is what transfers pressure to the edge on a heelside carve, so gaps between your boot and highback will kill your heelside carve. The more forward lean you have, the more you can bend your knees and ankles and still maintain contact with the highback. Your boot may not immediately fit in the binding very easily, but I find that cranking the heel strap down, moving around a bit, then re-cranking the heel strap will seat the boot in the binding nicely.

Get rid of the spin move and extend the ass carve and that was basically me

Lift/Cant: it's about tilting the base of the binding at a slight angle to help with your stance. Lift is tilting in the heel/toe direction (raising or lowering the heel in relation to the toe), cant is tilting perpendicular to that (side to side). Sometimes the tilting of the binding base may just be referred to generally as cant and lift either won't be mentioned or will mean something else (probably how much the binding raises your foot above the board). Also, yeah the risers these days do seem to be expensive. Looks like Power Plates are being made again and they're $250. I paid $200 for mine about 8 years ago. At the time it was way cheaper than a new board (which I couldn't really afford), so that's the route I went to fix my bootout. I've since gotten a Donek Flux that's wide enough to not need the Power Plates and I much prefer that, but I get that the new board route is much more expensive.

One thing that's helped my heelsides recently is to focus two things: getting my back hand more in front of me (and thus squaring my shoulders more to the front of the board), and bending at the waist more. The first is the classic touch your front knee/bootcuff with you back hand drill that somebody already mentioned. The second is about focusing on not reaching for the snow with my inside hand and keeping my shoulders level to the slope by bending at the waist more. The feeling is a bit like trying to pinch something between your hipbone and rib cage (on a heelside it'll be your back hip). Other than that, I'll just second all the advice about being a bit more dynamic, rotating your high backs to align better with the edges, and playing with forward lean (try cranking both bindings all the way forward and see how it feels). Oh, and if you're getting bootout on your current board, getting some form of risers can help. I'm not up on who's making what these days, but Bomber Power Plates give you a ton of extra height, plus some handy cant/lift adjustment. Downsides are that they're heavy as hell, expensive, and I think no longer made.

Here's a little anecdote from right after transitioned from an old Atomic all mountain board to my Donek Flux. My old board could kind of carve on a good day if I wasn't going too fast and the trail wasn't too steep, but I was always struggling with it. On one of the first few days riding my Flux, I washed out a heelside turn (my fault) and soon after sliding down the hill on my butt, the edge hooked up and I made a clean carve across the hill, at speed, while still on my butt, without me even trying. The Flux wants just wants to make a carved turn.

I bought some bomber power plates in 2015 since my old burton risers had cracked and at the time I booted out without some form of riser. The power plates worked well for eliminating bootout and were solidly built, but were also super heavy. The changeable inserts and cant adjustment was nifty, but I never tinkered with it much so I didn't find a huge benefit from it. Now I ride a 29.7 waist Donek Flux so I don't have to worry about bootout and use my board without power plates or any other kind of riser and I much prefer that setup.