lift/cant problems

[roscoe]

I got to the mountain in my hardboots for the first time this season, and after a few runs, realized that im pretty heavily weighted towards my left (front) foot - probably about 70-75% of my weight is on that foot (when im just standing on a relatively flat surface).

instead of messing around with the bindings too much (i have cateks), i just left it for the day. what exactly should i change (lift/cant on front/rear binding?) so my weight is more evenly distributed across both bindings? My left leg got SORE pretty quickly, so I'd like to correct that asap, but dont feel like going by the trial and error method if possible.

Thanks for any help!

[Jack M]

IMO, riding flat is really unnatural due to the fact that most boots have some amount of forward lean even in the minimum setting, and also a high heel and a ramped sub-footbed. By all means, try flat, some people like it.

Then try about a 3 degree increase in front foot toe lift. See what happens.

[MUD]

So this brings up a question. For boots with adjustable ankle cant, do you tighten it so you have flat feet about a shoulders width apart? That is my understanding. Am I wrong?

[MUD]

First, and not to sound like a wise-ass, you do mean actual cant, and not cuff-angle, right?

Some manufacturers still refer to cuff-angle adjustment as "canting"

In boots with adjustable canting (and, again, I'm not being a wise-ass) I usually remove the cant-adjustment, as it's rare that it can be used painlessly without the platform.

I never arrive at a stance distance by shoulder width, hip width, etc.

I determine stance width by the individual's unconscious athletic preference.

Stand up, do a few 'air squats", hop around, return to an 'at ease' stance, measure. viola. That's my method.

Sorry, I meant cuff-angle. I wasn't quite sure what to call it, so I just went with what I had.....:D

[MUD]

So cuff angle should be adjusted at stance width? Not at a neutral standing position?

[MUD]

? don't apologize- YOU didn't mold the boots with that on the side, the manufacturer did.

Ever wonder why they insist on making S/B hardboots with heel lift?

Do they really think we're going to step into some Markers and go skiing in these things?

There's a reason, and it's called using nice, cheap old ski boot mold technology with little forethought for snowboarders.

Sorry to bring down any of you hardboot manufacturer fans, out there, but this is why they manufacture them with these ridiculous ski boot heel lifts.

Wonderful isn't it? It would be nice to get a really good boot finally.

[MUD]

According to my last post, stance width and neutral standing position should be the same thing.

Only difference would be stance angle.

Thats what I thought I read, but I wasn't sure.... Looks like I have some more tweeking to do. Cool!

Thanks, I really appreciate it.

[BadBrad]

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I used to ride with no cant, but that was with a very narrow stance (16-17"). With the wider stance that most prefer these days I tried no cant and my heelside carves were wavy. I tried less rotation, moving the rear knee behind the front knee, moving the rear knee outward, etc., but I still got those wavy carves without a cant.

I also found this on The Carver's Almanac, so I guess I'm not alone:

"Cant/Lift can also prevent the board from twisting, a common source of heel side chatter. If you rotate your torso toward the nose of the board, and you have a bent-knee style of carving, your stance will naturally twist the board, causing the nose of the board to carve a tighter turn than the tail. As a result, the board may skid or chatter."

Of course, it could be poor technique as well, but this was my experience.

[Guest DarkClone]

I agree totally with Williamblake. Have been riding for well over 10yrs. and just love being as close as possible to the deck with no weird high rise platforms or bizzare cants. My wife even pukes when she sees riders with their boots a mile off the board. Ringling Brothers and Barnum Bailey left town a while back. Anyway the rest of the week here in S. Calif. looks to be epic with Thursday possible Hero snow!! Bear Mt. is our hill and Exibition is the run. Arms are a bit sore from shovelling snow for days. See you at the sesh. Darkclone out............

[Jack M]

I think this issue is hugely personal preference. Try all sorts of setups, use the one that gives you the best balance and best range/freedom of motion.

Toe lift on the front foot does not decrease ROM if you do not increase boot forward lean, and if you do not ride front-foot-heavy. Some people ride way over the front foot, often aggressively leaning forward at the waist. For those people, yes, increasing toe lift would probably decrease ROM. I like to keep my body movements more between the bindings, and with a more upright torso. For me, toe lift on the front foot and heel lift on the back foot simply allows me to use a wider stance (19.75") for greater stability and balance with comfort and <i>increased</i> ROM. Riding flat definitely decreases my ROM at this width.

Some people argue that the bend of the board in the turn cancels the effect of flat bindings. While that is true in the turn, it is not true out of the turn, which is equally important.

We do not walk flat footed, we walk heel toe heel toe. Take one step forward and freeze when your front heel hits the ground - your rear heel will be off the ground.

Meh, like I said, big personal preference factor here. Experiment.

DarkClone - you don't want to drop your 10+ years around here. Many here have you by a factor of 2 or more. It doesn't matter.

[cail]

i'd been riding 4 degree inward cant in the rear, with heel lift, and a small amount of toe lift (F2 Race Titaniums) previously. However, I tried WB's advice last time i was out and removed all lift/cant and rode flat. I also narrowed up my stance and turned my rear binding to a higher angle (same as my front). my first run down i immediately felt a huge difference, like i was more in control. my ROM felt higher as well.

however, my heelside turns were not as clean. i was getting a lot of chatter, and wasn't able to hold the edge. i have since moved my rear binding back, but have yet to see if that helps the problem. another problem was that i was really putting a lot of pressure on my rear shin. by the end of the day my shin was killing me.

[Jack M]

I strongly and respectfully disagree.

care to elaborate?

Come take some runs with me.

love to. ECES then?

[Jack M]

I was just about to respond to the second part of your post, and then it disappeared (the part about how could i disagree with your suggestion of going with personal preference)...

hehe... that's why I deleted it. couldn't write it in a misinterpretation-proof way.

[Jack M]

It must be great to have moderation powers with which to surreptitiously delete posts where I feel my argument was weak.

No, anyone can edit/delete their own posts.

is problematic for me, as the forward lean is , as you pointed out, built into the boot. By adding toe-lift to that boot, you've just decreased ROM of both the ankle, and, by reaction, the knee.

Ahh, here is our problem. I'm not talking about adding toe lift to the boot. I'm saying add toe lift to the binding - leaving the boot unchanged. I think that makes my point patently unfalse, yes? ;)

Adding toe lift to the inside of the boot would certainly decrease ROM.

Frankly, the idea that a board's bend will cancel the effect of one of these variables is lopsided, at best.

Agreed.

As to ECES, This simply isn't my bag, and I don't think I'll be stateside at that point, anyway, unfortunately.

Bummer. It's about the only time I can get away with playing hooky from the family.

[Jack M]

surreptitiously?

I doubt it.

Oh.... hehehe, no. I didn't realize you don't see the little note that says "last edited by" when I edit my own posts.

cool. muahahaha.

[Jack M]

NO.

Lift is lift, whether at the binding or at the boot. The boot and binding are "bound" together.

The point of interface has no bearing on the effect.

But adding toe lift to the binding doesn't change the angle of the ankle (the angle of the foot relative to the leg).

[trailertrash]

If you set your binding plates flat, and you have a current snowboard boot, aren't you essentially riding with heel lift?

You would have to ride with some toe lift to ride with your foot flat.

yes/no?

[JoelP]

Well I tried this chair thing and it works if my feet are flat and under me. If I move one foot forward and one foot back as if I was standing on my board then in order to keep the angle from my foot to my leg the same my front foot toes rise and my rear foot heel rises. I don't ride the way it is being explained in this scenario. Therefore I can't accept it.

I believe it's personal preference and that each should give different things a try to find their comfortable position. At that point they can work on having fun whether it be with our without lift. Also being near 50 years old now if I ride flat/flat, my legs will be done in a short day. Probably more important for me than cant/lift would be yoga :lol:

That unkowledgable wisdom coming from riding a carving board for 20 years.

JoelP

[Jack M]

You're mistaken, Jack.

The effect is the same whether it's boot or binding toe-lift.

Binding toe-lift decreases ankle ROM, as does boot toe-lift.

This is bringing me back to the discussions we used to have in Ski race Coachi8ng in the mid-80s, when the Derbyflex first entered the racing scene.

Try this on the floor, at your desk:

1.Sit at your desk with your feet flat on the floor.

2.flex your ankle (roll your chair for and aft, slightly)

3.Put something an inch thick under your toe.

4. Flex your ankle.

5.Now, something solid under your foot, that spans from your heel to your toe, flat.

6. flex your ankle

7. add the 1" thick item (I used an old Stanley tape measure) under the 'something solid'

8. flex your ankle.

The loss of ROM is the same in cases 3/4 and 7/8.

Old case, new audience.

I see what you are saying, and I understand it.

But in this example you're changing the angle of the foot relative to the leg, because your foot at your desk is not in a hardboot.

In hardboots, placing a toe lift under the front foot tilts the whole boot back. The angle between the boot foot and boot leg are not changed.

Yes, if you add toe lift and try to ride with your pelvis in the same location over the length of the board as without toe lift, you are going to have less ankle ROM.

BUT, if you add toe lift and bring your pelvis back, then the ROM is the same again.

This is why I use and advocate toe lift. I rode flat for years before I finally wised up and started cluging my own toe lifts for my p.o.s. BRPs. Never felt right flat. I felt like it always forced my pelvis forward. Using toe lift allows me to ride with my pelvis more between my bindings, where I like it. I have more ROM this way because I'm not limited by the fwd lean of the front boot any more.

If I could find a boot that had a zero forward lean option and no high heel and a level sub-footbed, I'm sure I would like a flat front binding.

[dingbat]

[JoelP]

Not to get in a pissing fight but where did I say I didn't try it? I tried it a few years ago when I bought the new TD2's and went through all the lifts to find my present stance. I use lift and still feel it's personal and I am not saying my lifts are for everyone neither am I saying flat/flat is for everyone.

so please don't assume I haven't tried it and I did find it WAS less work for me using lift.

Hey, I'm not saying any one thing is the right thing. what I am saying is I tried your experiment and it didn't work or feel right for me. Nor did riding flat/flat....and no it wasn't a one run experiment. Your thoughts are very rewarding to think about but do not necessarily work for me. I'm more in agreement with Jack here.

Also by saying 20 years of riding I'm not bolsting my rip ability but my comfort level of where my stance is today.

JoelP

[Jack M]

sigh. "yes it does" "no it doesn't" "yes it does" "no it doesn't".

so why is it that increasing stance width without adding in some front foot toe lift and rear foot heel lift.... <i><b>sucks?</b></i>

let me guess, I'm a lousy rider.

[Gunnar]

Anyone riding flat on a Sqwal? Must be greate for ROM!

Oh! By the way. Is there more...

[JoelP]

William

got to admit you are a funny guy. Now I Euro carve :lol::lol::lol:

I'm not one to argue I am right, I like discusions and learning new things and sometimes find some new things work and some don't. Flat doesn't work for me and the few times I've been around Chris Klug over here I've noticed he doesn't like flat/flat either...but then maybe that's because he was out Eurocarving that day.

I'll stop arguing with you since I now see you are right.

Eurocarve :lol::lol::lol:, haven't tried that for 15 years...

JoelP

[Jack M]

Lift, incidentally, that's very close to that of most Running shoes, casual shoes, etc., and thereby closer to what you're body is used to.;)

Birk's have toe lift. nya nya. :D