Injuries And Equipment

[Dave ESPI]

Odd that this thread popped up...

A few instructors and myself went out for a pre-lineup run in the sweet sweet buttery cordoroy this morning, and we stopped and regrouped a the top of the 360 run. I went first, followed by another and then at the bottom I waited. My buddy Angelo didn't come down, and I figured he had somehow passed me or took the side trail when I wasn't paying attention, but after 10 minutes of waiting at the snowboard meeting place tree and he not showing up at the rondevous point, I knew something was up. Our advisor called patrol and said we were missing a man. I hopped the 6 pack lift and went to the top. On the lift up a skier was saying some guy was in the woods with a busted leg or something. I was freeking a bit and went back to where we had stopped at. As I was going up, I could see there was Skipatrol on site and they had someone in a sled. Well all that could run thru my mind was Alex Bashara diving off the trail into woods the 12th of this month three years ago and said Oh gawd.... not another one. yep..... it was him. He tore the Lateral ligiment in his knee this morning on the first run of the day at Jiminy. He lost edge hold and slid off trail and took a shot to his leg from a tree as he was sliding on his belly headfirst off the side. He was in soft gear, and is a good boarder/Instructor. I spent the morning with him at Berkshire medical. I feared a tib plateau break or a ACL or other meniscus injury but initial inspection shows only minor issues and a lot of pain from the lig. He goes to ortho tomorrow.

Sux, but after 43 days on the snow, he took fate on one side his knee (trailing leg), atleast it was not major catastrophy. Season ender, but luckily at the end of the season.

The worst part is seeing a friend in pain that I too can personaly relate to on the same level. I was a bit naucious and needed some air at one point when they first brought him in because I remember all too well the feeling of muscles exploding and the burn and the stars you see in the back of your eye sockets when you hurt yourself "good".

Oddly enough we were not really ripping our normal early morning carves as the "grey squirel" (Paul Malone) asked me if we were rocketing around, and I said no, we actualy had just stopped and had zero speed at the top of the run. Was glad we were not in hardboots, or else that would have been a lot worse the way he hit.

[rocketman]

Took the board out in soft wet snow(was fine in the AM). Turned too hard and the nose bit a foot of heavy snow.

I was wearing stiff UPZ 5 buckle boots with the front locked and tight.

I'm 230lbs and often wondered what would happen if....

[BobD]

Many years ago I saw a classic ski video that could have been called "How to tear your ACL" The vieo basically showed the mechanism of having your knee bent about 90 deg. or more, your weight in the backseat, and twisting trying to hang on to the turn. An almost gaurunteed ACL tear.

It's times like this when you need to know enough to bail.

We would probably be to small group for some aspiring medical researcher to get any valuable data from, and I would personally be wary of passing on any medical advice without real sound research to back it up!

That reminded me of this article. The I like that there are exercises to help prevent acl injuries (and good I'm sure for general leg strength)

http://web.mac.com/kvkayak/iWeb/skiracecoach/Articles/FC060948-888E-4C11-9D51-EB1530C4517F.html

BobD

[nigelc]

both times on toe side at end of turn so weight on back toe, both times a little out of balance when hitting a large bump which forced my weight back further causing total losss of control, catching the heel egde and slamming onto my back. Thank god for helmets.

First time tear to medial ligament on back leg, shoulder seperation.

second time worse medial tear and complete PCL ruture on back leg.

accidents were foure years apart.

boots in ride mode always

[Bullwings]

I'm 230lbs and often wondered what would happen if....

If your board didn't break??

You probably would have broken.

When i broke my tib/fib, the previous month (to breaking my leg) i broke my 4wd by stuffing it into a mogul. My leg kinda hurt after that, but i was glad that the board broke and actually was not upset in the least. Based on the pain i was feeling in my leg (went away after an hour or so), i knew that i would have broken if the board didn't.

Following month when i broke my leg, the board came out unscathed completely fine.

If the gear doesn't break, the energy is transfered to you, and you break... Broken gear is a blessing, and a great excuse/reason to go buy a new up to date toy

Btw, that's an awesome looking broken board

[rhaskins]

You all notice that this is just another version of the great helmet debate?

I am a mech e and have done a fair share of material testing and systems analysis in my time. Regardless of how you think about it, the snowboard-binding-boot-rider is a complete system that will have a group of failure modes if pushed to failure. Ignoring the odd face plant and back slam, and just focusing on the lower leg to board interface, there are far fewer failure modes. Binding break, board break, leg break and lots of shades of failure in between and combinations and permutations.

The idea that walk-mode is "safer" or not can be analyzed. On the board, your ankles are your pivot point in this structure - actually more of a restricted swivel in hard boots. I wear UPZ's, and I definately have fore and aft movement with some (not very much) side to side flex, mostly provide by the board flex. In addition, the board provides flex in a number of directions so there is a lot of possible movement no matter how stiff the boots are. The UPZ's come with 2 different flex tounges to change how much flex there is. I have also had Deeluxe 325T boots that also had fore-aft flex.

Know what a spring is? the boots act as a spring, storing energy when they flex and giving that enery back when they unflex. This is not an efficient storing and releasing of energy but it does do it.

Lets look at a situation where there is a high probablility of a failure in the system. You are carving along and you come to a sudden stop - or the board comes to a stop. For the purpose of this example, assume the board is only heading forward and stops. You have 2 pivot points - the front part of the board and your front ankle. Ignore the rear ankle in this example, in this type of crash you don't rotate along the rear ankle, you straighten the rear leg and you rotate forward. Where does the energy go?

First, the nose of the board absorbes a lot of energy. If the boot-binding-leg structure is completly rigid and unbreakable, the nose of the board absorbes all the energy, and acts as a spring. If that was the case, the board is either going to absorb and break or absorb and release the energy.

What would really happen is that the board will absorb a lot of energy, but the rest of the structure (rest of board, binding, leg and rider) will pivot over the front of the board. IF the instanteous loading on the nose of the board exceeds the structural strength of the board - you gots yourself a broken board. This could happen very fast and the actual process of breaking can absorb and release all or most of the energy in this situation, essentially leaving little more energy to hurt (damage) the rest of the system.

Now, assume that the system is live, as in all components have flex and move like they will. If the board stops, in the same instant that the nose starts to deflect, the rest of the system will start to rotate over the front of the board, and the front leg will ALSO rotate around the ankle. The front leg rotation will pressure the front of the boot, which acts as a spring. This spring will resist any forward movement but not stop it. The rear boot-binding-leg interface is more or less just along for the ride and most of the forces involved are on the front of the board.

Quick test: where does a wheel rotate around going down the road? The correct answer is the point contact on the ground as that is the only point on the wheel not moving. There is also rotation around the axle, but all parts of the wheel are in different velocities around that point. Multiple rotations happen in a lot of systems, just like in a snowboard crash.

About that front boot and leg. Everything has a failure point. You take wood, concrete, steel or A LEG and put in compression on a tester, and it will fail. Put them in tension on a tester, ditto. Put shear forces on them in a tester and you get failure also. Get a lot of each sample, test them to failure and you can develope a real good bell curve of the material properties. Legs will fail at certain loads depending on length, size, density, etc. Sounds rude and crude, but human factors are human factors. The boot, made of plastic, will deflect to a certain point before the limits of the materials are met and then it will fail. A leg will break if the load is too high - or another part of the sytem that has less total strength gives way, like a knee.

You carving in walk mode? In a nose stuff crash, your boot provides less shock absorbtion than in ride mode. You have no limit for the forward rotation except for the boot tounge flex. You have a magnitude less forward resistance as the rear of the boot is not providing any shock absorbtion or movement resistance. You have less immediate loading on the leg, but more shock at the limit as your velocity and momentum is going to be higher when it eventually stops.

Carving in ride mode? In a nose stuff, your boot tounge and rear is providing rotational resistance and shock (energy) absorbtion from the beginning of the crash, and your rate of acceleration of the front leg is slower than in walk mode. The boot acts as a better spring. While there is high loading ultimately, there is less shock loading at the end than in walk mode.

Failure mode? As above, the board can break and release most energy. The binding can rip out. The boot can break. The leg can be injured or break.

The leg injury depends on a lot of factors. Tall heavy people have more mass that will effect the boot ankle system, and impart more energy. Short light people will put a lot less energy into the sytem. It is a moment arm thing.

What will really happen in a crash? I don't have modeling software or I would be hard at work right now, modeling the sytem, varying the inputs and looking at the energy put into the system and how it reacts.

And don't forget about luck, chance and random input in any crash. I mean it is possible to just fall down and injure you head and die, no? Most crashes will not be on a single axis but on a number of different axis and have other inputs. Total system energy has to be dissipated somehow. These types of crashes can have a lot of energy and force put on the ankle, tibia and knee. There is a lot of leverage put on ankles.

3 weeks ago I had a crash where I was laid out carving on toeside and went over a little hill and went airborne at high speed. I hit the ground about 10 feet vertical drop later and nosed in. The board nose folded over, my shin touched my toe. My momentum kept me going forward rotating over my board nose. The board then released all it's energy and I went flying upside down for about 15 feet or so and landed perfectly flat on my back. The force of the landing was distributed over my entire backside and did not hurt. I left quite the divot in the slope. Total air was on the order of 30 some odd feet. I got to hobble off the slope.

My tibia was smashed into my talis (so says my doc) in the initial impact and then my achilles tendon was streched by my boot flexing forward until it stopped on my toes. No obvious damage to the board, binding or boot. I am walking normally now with some pain still.

Coulda been worse, coulda been better. I think that I was injured less because:

- I am a short guy, 29 inch inseam, less moment arm

- don't weigh a lot

- I strech a LOT. My muscles are kept loose.

- I broke my leg 2 years ago and stuffed a lot of calcium in me. I think it helped, but it is definately not advised as calcium can cause a lot of problems (inner ear balance problems and prostate issues)

- I was in ride mode on my UPZ's and got a lot of protection from my boots

I tell ya, I never, ever believed that my shin could touch my toes. Yeouch!

Just my 2 cents. Sometimes it comes down to what you believe. I belive that my helmet helps protect me and that walk mode is more likely to result in injury.

Rick

[bumpyride]

I agree with you up to a certain point, and that's here.

You carving in walk mode? In a nose stuff crash, your boot provides less shock absorption than in ride mode. You have no limit for the forward rotation except for the boot tounge flex. You have a magnitude less forward resistance as the rear of the boot is not providing any shock absorbtion or movement resistance. You have less immediate loading on the leg, but more shock at the limit as your velocity and momentum is going to be higher when it eventually stops.

Carving in ride mode? In a nose stuff, your boot tounge and rear is providing rotational resistance and shock (energy) absorbtion from the beginning of the crash, and your rate of acceleration of the front leg is slower than in walk mode. The boot acts as a better spring. While there is high loading ultimately, there is less shock loading at the end than in walk mode.

I think the proper way to analyze this would be to include a model to calculate the "braking" as well as the "breaking" point. As the boot and leg decelerate it lessens the force on the leg because the boot absorbs energy. I think the amount of tib-fib breaks at the boot cuff would attest to the fact the stiff interface of the ride mode acts more as a fulcrum and less as a spring. My feeling about that is if the point of failure of the legs in not reached then you don't have the break. Often times I have over extended and could swear that I would have broken my leg at the boot cuff if the deceleration of the walk mode had not been in play. The boot in the walk mode does offer resistance and does stop at a certain point, and if you flex it manually in the walk mode you can see the amount of force that it takes to get the cuff to contact the boot. I think that is the neglected aspect of the walk mode. Kind of reminds me of the fable of the willow vs. the oak. The oak strong and proud tried to stand against the storm's wind and the willow bent with the wind. The oak broke and the willow was left standing. Very apparent in a wind storm.

So if one was to do a model he would have to include the rate of deceleration with a more flexible system (walk mode) to calculate how much that deceleration would temper the ultimate force placed on the tib-fib.

Somehow I have trouble with the fact that there have been many clean breaks at the boot cuff in the ride mode and that would not give any evidence that the ride mode gives more flex. So I don't believe that the boot in the ride mode works as a better spring, I believe it acts as a better fulcrum than a spring.

If one was to do a model he would have to test the load that is placed on the tib-fib in several scenarios and stress loads. Again if the breaking point is not reached because of deceleration then there is not break. I'm also of the opinion that when a sudden force is placed on a static position (boot cuff) it results in a greater impact than a slower force where there is a chance for it to yield.

I too have folded the nose of a board and broke it. Hardly ever felt it on my shin. Coming off a headwall into trough. Sudden and forceful stop-no problem.

Of course this is my opinion and certainly open to debate.

[bumpyride]

Of course, because most people ride in Ride mode, not walk mode.

On a side note, would you rather have a tib-fib break because you fell hard, or a messed up ankle with all the associated bone, tendon and ligament damage because your boot failed in walk mode?

Jim, I know that you're not a fan of riding in the walk mode. Pretty evident from some of your past posts. I happen to ride strictly in the walk mode and am a fan of riding in such.

What I'm saying is that I'd rather have neither injury, and that has borne out in my riding. I believe that the walk mode has saved me numerous times, and that's my experience, and I'm not alone. It may not be yours, and that's OK. Had a poll awhile back open to all of Bombers Denizens, and it went like this.

View Poll Results: Walk Mode Vs. Ride Mode which is really more dangerous

Walk mode--no injuries

25 41.67%

Walk mode--injured while being in Walk mode

2 3.33%

Walk mode--would've been worse in Ride mode

2 3.33%

Ride mode--no injuries

25 41.67%

Ride mode--injured while being in Ride mode

6 10.00%

RIde mode--would've been worse in walk mode

0 0%

Voters: 60. You have already voted on this poll

I think you'd be surprised at how many people do ride at least occasionally in the walk mode. Check out the numbers above, and I know the sample is small, but it is the sample, and it was open to all. I do believe that a lot of the guys around here don't like to rock the boat and sometimes hold back their own opinion especially if it goes against the grain. I don't happen to be in that group. So unless someone can definitely prove that it is inherently unsafe, it's inherently unfair to paint as dangerous.

[zoltan]

Walk mode and powder mode will allow an uncontrolled collapse of the boot in a crash, this alone makes it unsafe. You're looking at a great scenario to destroy soft tissue in your ankle, and if your boots have a very tight fit, then you're looking at a great way to snap your leg as it tries to bend over all the plastic in your instep. If a locked boot is too stiff for you, and it is for me, then the safe alternative is the BTS; it still allows movement, but it's no controlled and has limits.

Bumpyride, I'd guess you probably have good flexibility in your legs and your legs are quite strong?

[Bobby Buggs]

Rode walk mode for 5 years then got a BTS, no damage.

Ricks post made my head hurt at 7Am:freak3:

[rhaskins]

Need a new poll based on height, weight and inseam. A bunch of lighweight 4 footer's not having any injury in ride mode is not indicative of the general population. Seriously.:D

Breaks at the cuff of the boot indicate a third pivot point after all the flex was taken out of the system in a crash. It **could** mean that the crashes were such high energy that no system could survive without a failure.

Not trying to beat on heuristics and experience, but without further data, there is not anything to show that walk mode is safer in a crash. 4 foot 100 pound little people crashing in walk mode at low speed is not the same as 6 foot 4 inch 250 lb. Scandinavians (or Minnesotians or Buck Hillians) crashing at high speed in ride mode. The moment arms are completely different and the total amount of energy in the crash is completely different.

It is the energy that causes the problmes, and the more there is, the more likely there is to be damage to the system.

Rick

[yyzcanuck]

Question though: why do you ride in walk mode? When boots are soft and sloppy, you're unable to pressure the edge as effectively.

You ask a good question... perhaps one that should be answered by an engineer rather than a person that (according to some esteemed BOL'ers) just plays one online! I'll give it a go anyhow, despite my lack of credentials.

I would imagine the reason for riding in walk-mode (for some) is they are now able to make better use of the full travel in the suspension system (of the legs). The ankle is no longer locked in position so the body can now move up/down & fore/aft more easily. Real or perceived, I think it makes it easier for some riders to feel what is going on, get lower when necessary and to absorb bumps and shocks.

As for the boot being soft and sloppy, perhaps it isn't as important as one might think. In my experience, given the angles I ride, much of what I think of as edge control requires very little fore/aft input. For me the turn initiation is done with medial/lateral movements of the lower leg and by sliding the hips forward. This motion puts little, if any, fore/aft pressure on the boot. Once I have the board inclinated it comes down to being able to adjust for changing conditions and terrain (see above points about suspension).

I guess my question would now be... what's the point of the Bomber BTS & Raichle/Deeluxe RAB? Given the amount of positive feedback about the BTS, I'd have to say there must be something good about it?

[BobD]

Until the last two seasons, I would ride walk mode on the rear boot only for a few sessions at the start of the season. I did this because it allowed me to find the sweet spot where I was not torquing the board on heelsides and chattering out. Once I had it dialed in, I could lock the rear boot down and get finer control.

I suspect that some people ride in walk mode for similar reasons. That when the boots are locked, they torque the board and it chatters out. So my guess would be that they have set up issues or are not able to get it dialed in when the boots are locked. (I said some people, not all).

BobD

[Blue Bird]

I looked at the thread title and thought to myself "yes, if you have equipment you will get injured. That is part of an active lifestyle."

[bumpyride]

No, I don't have empirical data to say that riding in walk mode is unsafe, however, to me it seems blatently obvious that boots aren't meant to be ridden in walk mode, and that the chance of failure jumps greatly when ridden as such.

Question though: why do you ride in walk mode? When boots are soft and sloppy, you're unable to pressure the edge as effectively.

The problem that I have about this argument is that people say "to me it seems". I like to have an argument that relies less on opinions and more on facts, and I don't have any more facts than you do, so it's kind of a stalemate till someone actually comes up with a good model to make a competent study, but one that takes in all the parameters.

I ride in the walk mode because it allows me to absorb any rough/soft spots on the slope, and also the troughs of the bumps. It keeps me from going over the handlebars. It also allows me to be more flexible in the knees (able to move forward and aft because the fulcrum goes forward and aft, and to recover and react quicker. Believe when I say that I've tried to ride in the ride mode and to me it's not safe.

Pressure on the edges doesn't seem to be a problem because your lateral movement in the boots is not affected to any great degree because the forward movement, at least not enough to put me my off edge grip.

If a person looks at the way the board/boot interface works when it the boots are locked down, you're putting a hard edge just past the 90 degree mark from the slope. If you fold the nose, hit a rut. or submarine at a high rate of speed look what happens to your body. When coming to a screaming stop your upper body can bend at the waist but your knees and tib-fib will prevent your body from bending much more forward. Once the force on the cuff of the boot become too great the tib-fib takes the brunt of the force. If the boot is allowed to flex forward with increasing resistance it would prevent a hard edge at the cuff line acting as a static breaking point. You, of course could dial in your resistance with the BTS.

I would encourage people unsure of the safety of the walk mode to experiment with the BTS, but what's the reason for the BTS in the first place? I guess that would be to allow forward and aft movement and keep the tib-fib under less strain. I find that I have not a problem in the walk mode, and that's 13 years of riding that way.

[bumpyride]

I looked at the thread title and thought to myself "yes, if you have equipment you will get injured. That is part of an active lifestyle."

Very true, but then we do have safety belts, and Nascar has full body stabilisation (whatever that's called), and we have helmets and BTS.

[bumpyride]

You ask a good question... perhaps one that should be answered by an engineer rather than a person that (according to some esteemed BOL'ers) just plays one online! I'll give it a go anyhow, despite my lack of credentials.

I would imagine the reason for riding in walk-mode (for some) is they are now able to make better use of the full travel in the suspension system (of the legs). The ankle is no longer locked in position so the body can now move up/down & fore/aft more easily. Real or perceived, I think it makes it easier for some riders to feel what is going on, get lower when necessary and to absorb bumps and shocks.

As for the boot being soft and sloppy, perhaps it isn't as important as one might think. In my experience, given the angles I ride, much of what I think of as edge control requires very little fore/aft input. For me the turn initiation is done with medial/lateral movements of the lower leg and by sliding the hips forward. This motion puts little, if any, fore/aft pressure on the boot. Once I have the board inclinated it comes down to being able to adjust for changing conditions and terrain (see above points about suspension).

I guess my question would now be... what's the point of the Bomber BTS & Raichle/Deeluxe RAB? Given the amount of positive feedback about the BTS, I'd have to say there must be something good about it?

I totally agree with everything written here.

[bumpyride]

Need a new poll based on height, weight and inseam. A bunch of lighweight 4 footer's not having any injury in ride mode is not indicative of the general population. Seriously.:D

Breaks at the cuff of the boot indicate a third pivot point after all the flex was taken out of the system in a crash. It **could** mean that the crashes were such high energy that no system could survive without a failure.

Not trying to beat on heuristics and experience, but without further data, there is not anything to show that walk mode is safer in a crash. 4 foot 100 pound little people crashing in walk mode at low speed is not the same as 6 foot 4 inch 250 lb. Scandinavians (or Minnesotians or Buck Hillians) crashing at high speed in ride mode. The moment arms are completely different and the total amount of energy in the crash is completely different.

It is the energy that causes the problmes, and the more there is, the more likely there is to be damage to the system.

Rick

I'm actually a Minnesotan (Duluth) by birth and fall somewhere in between, and maybe I am a bit of a lightweight (5'9" 150 lbs).

No doubt about the energy causing the problems, I think the whole thing boils down to lessening the energy to the point where it is no longer in the fracture zone of the tib/fib, and where one goes to initiate that reduction.

You are to be congratulated on "heuristics". First time I've seen that used on this forum, and very applicable.

[zoltan]

If a person looks at the way the board/boot interface works when it the boots are locked down, you're putting a hard edge just past the 90 degree mark from the slope. If you fold the nose, hit a rut. or submarine at a high rate of speed look what happens to your body. When coming to a screaming stop your upper body can bend at the waist but your knees and tib-fib will prevent your body from bending much more forward. Once the force on the cuff of the boot become too great the tib-fib takes the brunt of the force. If the boot is allowed to flex forward with increasing resistance it would prevent a hard edge at the cuff line acting as a static breaking point. You, of course could dial in your resistance with the BTS.

Think about it this way, a boot crashed in walk mode will collapse until it hits the plastic stops, at which the stops will either hold or break. Therefore the two possible outcomes are:

- If the stops hold, then you've essentially crashed with a locked boot, since the adjuster is now "locked" against the stops. Since our boots have ankle pivots, minimal energy has been dissipated until it hits the stops. Therefore, in this scenario it's no safer than a locked boot.

- If the stops break, then you have an uncontrolled collapse of the boot, which is not a good thing. You're going to run a high risk of tearing your ankle, snapping your leg at the cuff when the boot bottoms, or snapping your leg over the plastic in the instep. At the least, for the experience of people on here who've blown the stops and not caused significant damage, you're going to have a sore ankle. Therefore, in this scenario a locked boot is safer.

Just because it hasn't bit you yet, doesn't mean it's safe. It just means you haven't been bit yet. You probably have your short height and low weight to thank for that.

If you want to ride in walk or powder mode, be my guest, but it's wrong to tell people it's just as safe or safer than riding with a locked boot or a BTS.

[BobD]

I might have missed it above, but a factor in how a boot behaves in walk mode is which boot it actually is.

There's a huge difference between a Raichle SB and a Burton Furnace say.

In fact the Burton may offer more resistance in walk mode than the SB does in ride mode. The design and construction of the cuff and upper boot are factors in how easily and how far forward the boot can flex in any mode.

BobD

[rhaskins]

What every one is talking about in the ride mode is they want an "active suspension" so to speak. BTS allows that with a progressive resistance due to the springs. The trick is to get the springs matched to the amount of input (weight) in the system.

If you ride in ride mode, the analogy is a fixed frame bike, walk mode is a full suspension bike with some big design flaws (no limits to travel potentially until the full stop is reached), bts is full suspension with travel limit and progressive resistance to movement.

Think about a better BTS system, one with dampening. If you could design a system to apply to the back of the boot that had springs and a dampner (shock absorber), it would probably be ideal. Think modern suspension bike, coil over shock, etc. Especially if it was adjustable. You could dial in your spring rate and dampning, and the dampning would help on any impact during riding andin a crash. Oof course your sprung/unsprung weight would change . . .

I wanna see someone out on the slopes next year with a fox shock hanging off the back of their boot with a BTS. That would cause a lot of comment on the slopes.

Rick

[bumpyride]

QUOTE=zoltan;247958]Think about it this way, a boot crashed in walk mode will collapse until it hits the plastic stops, at which the stops will either hold or break. Therefore the two possible outcomes are:

- If the stops hold, then you've essentially crashed with a locked boot, since the adjuster is now "locked" against the stops. Since our boots have ankle pivots, minimal energy has been dissipated until it hits the stops. Therefore, in this scenario it's no safer than a locked boot.

Me, My conjecture refuting your conjecture:

There is resistance as the boot travels forward to the stops which subdues some of the force, and the distance that it allows the leg to travel forward is greater which also allows the force to be minimized. A locked boot stops the leg at a greater angle and quicker which increases the force at the boot cuff, which increases the chance of a snapped leg.

Z

- If the stops break, then you have an uncontrolled collapse of the boot, which is not a good thing. You're going to run a high risk of tearing your ankle, snapping your leg at the cuff when the boot bottoms, or snapping your leg over the plastic in the instep.

Me: If there's a risk of snapping your leg in the walk mode where the boot has flexed forward would there not be a greater chance of snapping it in the ride mode where there would be even greater force applied at the boot cuff?

Then we also haven't even thought about factoring in heel lift which would change the pivot point.

Z

At the least, for the experience of people on here who've blown the stops and not caused significant damage, you're going to have a sore ankle. Therefore, in this scenario a locked boot is safer.

Me: I'd rather have a sore ankle than a broken tib-fib any day. How is that safer? Granted torn ligaments etc. are sometimes harder to heal than a break, but it's up for debate where you will suffer torn ligaments, and not to hard to discern when you snap a leg.

Z

Just because it hasn't bit you yet, doesn't mean it's safe. It just means you haven't been bit yet. You probably have your short height and low weight to thank for that.

Me: I'm not height challenged, I'm 5'9", although I will say that I do have a low weight. If it hasn't bit me yet, and I'm relatively certain that it has prevented me from breaking a leg, I would have to say I feel it's safer.

Z

If you want to ride in walk or powder mode, be my guest, but it's wrong to tell people it's just as safe or safer than riding with a locked boot or a BTS.

Me: For me, I figure it's safer, though I wouldn't say it's safer than riding with BTS, although I would say it's safer for people to ride with a BTS than a boot locked in Ride mode.

You know life is not always in absolutes. Lots of gray areas. I do feel that it's safer, and I stand by that till proven otherwise. I would venture to say that riding in the walk mode being dangerous will not be sustained by discourse without facts.

[bumpyride]

What every one is talking about in the ride mode is they want an "active suspension" so to speak. BTS allows that with a progressive resistance due to the springs. The trick is to get the springs matched to the amount of input (weight) in the system.

If you ride in ride mode, the analogy is a fixed frame bike, walk mode is a full suspension bike with some big design flaws (no limits to travel potentially until the full stop is reached), bts is full suspension with travel limit and progressive resistance to movement.

Think about a better BTS system, one with dampening. If you could design a system to apply to the back of the boot that had springs and a dampner (shock absorber), it would probably be ideal. Think modern suspension bike, coil over shock, etc. Especially if it was adjustable. You could dial in your spring rate and dampning, and the dampning would help on any impact during riding andin a crash. Oof course your sprung/unsprung weight would change . . .

I wanna see someone out on the slopes next year with a fox shock hanging off the back of their boot with a BTS. That would cause a lot of comment on the slopes.

Rick

No disagreement here, although I think the fox shock should be plated in "GOLD" for a little extra "BLING". I do believe it would be safer to have BTS installed for all, but walk mode would work for some also.

After riding for so many years in the walk mode with my particular boots, it works quite well, so I'm not inclined to change just to change. Of course driving without seat belts works quite well till you have an accident. But then I've had several accidents while in the walk mode that saved me from going over the handlebars and snapping my leg.

[bumpyride]

I might have missed it above, but a factor in how a boot behaves in walk mode is which boot it actually is.

There's a huge difference between a Raichle SB and a Burton Furnace say.

In fact the Burton may offer more resistance in walk mode than the SB does in ride mode. The design and construction of the cuff and upper boot are factors in how easily and how far forward the boot can flex in any mode.

BobD

Another really good point.

[C5 Golfer]

This thread is amazing.

It gets me excited to go ride today but then I read on and I am afraid to get out of bed for fear of injury. I gotta go find a coin and flip it.. let it make a decision for me. Thanks for all the info here.