www.oldsnowboards.com Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I think the important thing is you have to have actually ridden the plate you are reviewing. If you don't have first hand knowledge of what you are critiquing, then the critique is without merit and simply an opinion based on a photo you saw. As you know there is a review section on the forum. If you feel uncomfortable posting your riding experience here, then post it there. Couldn't agree more! Well said Sean. In doing reviews I think it is also key to include the rider and snowboard information to allow readers to better apply the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.E Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 My personal choice this season will be the AF plate. It's lighter, lower, provides a sense of what is happening in the board, allows the board to freely twist and flex laterally, and unlike any other plate on the market offers the ability to manipulate the board as if it didn't have a plate. Sorry to cut from one thread to another, but it seemed relevant over here. To my eye the new AF looks similar to the concepts in the JJA plate- separating lateral flex away from the axle hardware, and allowing the plate and board to interact through 4 separate UPM mounts. I'm interested in hearing more about "unlike any other plate on the market offers the ability to manipulate the board as if it didn't have a plate" from your perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Sorry to cut from one thread to another, but it seemed relevant over here.To my eye the new AF looks similar to the concepts in the JJA plate- separating lateral flex away from the axle hardware, and allowing the plate and board to interact through 4 separate UPM mounts. I'm interested in hearing more about "unlike any other plate on the market offers the ability to manipulate the board as if it didn't have a plate" from your perspective. I believe the Apex, Jasey Jay, and AF plates are the only ones that approach lateral compliance by using independent mounts. The elimination of the axle in the AF plate reduces stack height dramatically and makes it possible to gain intimate contact with the board as well as immediate edge engagement. I think it's the only constrained hinge available though. Edited November 11, 2012 by Donek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.E Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 constrained hinge I'm not familiar with the term- are you not using a "slider", but an actual pivoting hinge? I couldn't quite tell what was happening in that plate pic (from the referenced thread). Thanks, Sean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 I'm not familiar with the term- are you not using a "slider", but an actual pivoting hinge? I couldn't quite tell what was happening in that plate pic (from the referenced thread).Thanks, Sean. The device slides on top of the board. The pivot is handled by a bending member instead of an axle. The bending member is constrained in one direction so it can only rotate in one direction. As a result, when your knees are pinched together, the plate and board can be bent or manipulated by the rider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 The device slides on top of the board. The pivot is handled by a bending member instead of an axle. The bending member is constrained in one direction so it can only rotate in one direction. As a result, when your knees are pinched together, the plate and board can be bent or manipulated by the rider.in the 'knees pinched' posture, is there the possibility of a multiplication of force being transmitted through the plate interface?hitting a bump mid-turn. on a sliding/pivoting interface the board would flex this would be absorbed, is this instead going to be passed upwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 in the 'knees pinched' posture, is there the possibility of a multiplication of force being transmitted through the plate interface?hitting a bump mid-turn. on a sliding/pivoting interface the board would flex this would be absorbed, is this instead going to be passed upwards? You're going to have to pose this question differently as I don't understand it. The AF system works the same as any other mono plate when the board is bending. When at rest, or between turns the rider has the ability to preload the board as he enters a turn. Once the board bends further than preloaded, the system slides like any other mono plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 You're going to have to pose this question differently as I don't understand it. The AF system works the same as any other mono plate when the board is bending. When at rest, or between turns the rider has the ability to preload the board as he enters a turn. Once the board bends further than preloaded, the system slides like any other mono plate.ahh right i follow now. i had the action in reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fin Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I am going to jump in here as I believe there is currently a large amount of miss information on plates. My eventual goal is to try and create an article on all the different plates available and how they mechanically function. It is hard to visualize some of these mechanical actions we are seeing in all these new devices. It used to be so easy and simple, a snowboard! But for now I want to address one small aspect of plate design before it gets out of hand: The statement: “2 piece mounting allows for torsional and lateral flex and a 1 piece mount does not” is incorrect. To start to understand this, below is a picture to help see the difference for conversation sake. It generically shows the difference between these two mounting methods. What needs to be realized is there is NEGLIGIBLE flex across (laterally) a snowboard. Now add essentially another snowboard, a plate, across this same distance, add aluminum or steel hardware, and you have an incredibly strong torsion box that does not want to flex or move in the across (lateral) direction. We have not even gone to the fact you add a binding and a stiff soled boot right over this same plane. The ability to “bend” all these items in that direction is monumental. This incredible rigidity (only in this plane) comes from the fact you have created a very affective torsion box. In order for that box to collapse and bend, the corners of that box have to collapse. And in this configuration, they will not. In the picture below I show an end view of our current UPM (1 piece mount). In Picture A you see the current version where the mounting brackets spans across the entire width of the board along with the axel. In Picture B you see where I took PhotoShop and removed the center section to represent a “2 piece” type mounting. Regardless of which one you select, you still have that incredible strong torsion box and a tremendous amount of material over a relatively short distance resisting bending in that plane. So how do we allow those planes to rotate? Easy, you change the center section (area between your feet) of the plate itself. This allows the two planes under your feet to twist in either direction. The effect of changing the profile of the plate between your feet DRAMATICALLY changes this as opposed to any affect you might get from the difference of a 2 piece to a 1 piece mount. I show these areas in the last picture. And when we talk “lateral compliancy” this is achieved from a torsional movement. So in my opinion, you can say lateral flex, but what we really mean is torsional flex as that gives us the effect of lateral flex UNDER the feet. Once again, I am not arguing which method is best or superior, but I am clarifying that these difference in the two methods of mounting a plate have no effect of the ability of a rider to twist and pedal a snowboard. Those desirable traits are achieved with the construction, design, and implementation of the plate itself. Don’t make me go all “Myth Busters” and make a test jig to show all this! Busted :D Edited November 11, 2012 by fin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I believe fin and Sean are talking about two different concepts here. Sean is talking about toeside edge and heel side edge flexing independently, whereas fin is talking about plate-controlled torsional flex, i.e. twisting of the board across the entire width of the board. It may sound similar but a bit different. As a board bends during carving, toeside and heel side edge draw different arc, albeit by a small amount. What Sean seems to say is that AF plate allows this to happen or the plate does not hinder such flexing. 2-axle plate, on the other hand, locks heel side and toeside arc. So 4mm lite plate allows two different arcs to happen by torsional twist of the plate. Edited November 11, 2012 by leeho730 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 If we take a plate and look at it from the side, we see a structure that looks similar to Fin's figure A. If it were not for the slider mechanism, it could also be called a torsion box. Examining the structure from this perspective makes it quite easy to break the torsion box in Figure A. Given the small degree of movement present, one could simply loosen their tolerances so the hardware slid a very small amount from side to side. Materials that allow for lateral flexing could also be used. Or a combination of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I think the important thing is you have to have actually ridden the plate you are reviewing. If you don't have first hand knowledge of what you are critiquing, then the critique is without merit and simply an opinion based on a photo you saw. As you know there is a review section on the forum. If you feel uncomfortable posting your riding experience here, then post it there. The actual plate or would prototypes with similar design principals be acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fin Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I believe fin and Sean are talking about two different concepts here Yes, I have not made my argument clear. I am not talking about play or the mechanical "slop" of the system. I am focusing on a certain aspect of what is being discussed: the difference between a two piece and one piece mounting system. The ability to pedal (twist) a board and plate combination does not come from the use of a two piece mounting system. It comes from many other aspects of the plate itself which is the connector between the feet and dictates this feel. If I took our original 5mm BP that is very firm in flex (longitudinally and torsional) and all I changed was the mounts and made them two piece, would that plate now twist significantly more? I don't think it would. The answer to more torsional flex (pedaling) is the plate itself. Our new 4mm Lite plate (now available) uses the same exact lower mounts that are one piece (UPM). This plate uses a much thinner and narrower core profile and has quite a bit of material removed from the waist. The result, a plate system with tremendous torsional flex that you can pedal at low speed. This performance has nothing to do with the mounts being one or two piece. It never has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 The actual plate or would prototypes with similar design principals be acceptable? A discussion of your successes and failures would be quite interesting. You should maybe ask a moderator where the best place to put such a thing would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) Yes, I have not made my argument clear.I am not talking about play or the mechanical "slop" of the system. I am focusing on a certain aspect of what is being discussed: the difference between a two piece and one piece mounting system. The ability to pedal (twist) a board and plate combination does not come from the use of a two piece mounting system. It comes from many other aspects of the plate itself which is the connector between the feet and dictates this feel. If I took our original 5mm BP that is very firm in flex (longitudinally and torsional) and all I changed was the mounts and made them two piece, would that plate now twist significantly more? I don't think it would. The answer to more torsional flex (pedaling) is the plate itself. Our new 4mm Lite plate (now available) uses the same exact lower mounts that are one piece (UPM). This plate uses a much thinner and narrower core profile and has quite a bit of material removed from the waist. The result, a plate system with tremendous torsional flex that you can pedal at low speed. This performance has nothing to do with the mounts being one or two piece. It never has. Oh, all I wanted to say was that two-piece mounting system would allow different amount of travel for one edge to the other. It's because when the board bends, due to convex sidecut, the edge that is not being carved on will not bend as much as the one that is working. I have included the picture to better illustrate my point. So the 'lateral movement' seems a bit different from torsional flex... And if the plate allows limited degree of lateral flex, then the single axle mounting system can compensate such lateral movement of the board during carving... But whether this is critical or not, I don't know. Many people are happy with the performance of BBP, so it may not be that important. Edited November 12, 2012 by leeho730 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 It may be important to point out that these discussions and opinions do not mean that you should not try any or all variety of plates available. High performance or budget priced all plates have a lot to offer old school or new school boards. The details under discussion are important more as an understanding of the plates effect on the board maybe not so much the effect on the rider. You will notice a profound effect but its sometimes difficult to determine if it is feel or performance that you detect. The cross over (perhaps bad choice of treminology) in my opinion comes when the plate becomes soft enough for the rider to influence the board by peddling which in my opinion (and others who may not want to face the firing squad with such a bold statement.) is important to recreational riders more in the relm of comfort over performance. This point becomes cloudy when considering that one of the main benefits of a plate is the fact that it allows the board to arc independant of the influence of flat bindings stiff sole boots and perhaps some degree of peddling.The mechanism used to attach the plate to the board probably has the greatest influence on the price of an isolation plate so Seans simple plastic device should reduce the price drastically. Allowing more to enjoy the benefit of plates without breaking the bank. Perhaps the discussion on pure and applied peddling would be better in the racing and coaching thread ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fin Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 The details under discussion are important more as an understanding of the plates effect on the board maybe not so much the effect on the rider. You will notice a profound effect but its sometimes difficult to determine if it is feel or performance that you detect. The cross over (perhaps bad choice of treminology) in my opinion comes when the plate becomes soft enough for the rider to influence the board by peddling which in my opinion (and others who may not want to face the firing squad with such a bold statement.) is important to recreational riders more in the relm of comfort over performance. This point becomes cloudy when considering that one of the main benefits of a plate is the fact that it allows the board to arc independant of the influence of flat bindings stiff sole boots and perhaps some degree of peddling.The mechanism used to attach the plate to the board probably has the greatest influence on the price of an isolation plate Well put Lowrider! And I guess my point as well I just did not state it as directly as yourself. The single event of just using a plate has so many large and amazing advantages that narrow discussions on small specific aspects of the hardware (such as my discussion above) have little impact on the large scale or performance returns by just using a plate. And this includes all style and types of plates. But as you put it Lowrider a very personal aspect that determines if a plate works for you is its ability to "pedal", giving you control at lower speeds. And it is still my opinion that the primary contributor to this function is found in the plate itself. My tests have shown HUGE differences in how much the plate itself can manipulate pedaled by changing the shape, size, core, etc. of the plate. I found very little return in manipulating pedal by changing the brackets and other associated hardware. As you said, the "cross over" to making a plate work for you is finding the correct one that gives the best balance of pedaling while still acting as an isolator. That is a primary reason we now offer three models of the Boiler Plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted December 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Couple plate versions ready to be tested. Plate it! This is going to save allot on stomp pads :) Edited December 15, 2012 by www.oldsnowboards.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Plate-ception! I'm picturing the left-most board with another plate on it. Heck, maybe stack two high on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted December 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Hi Corey, I rode the two far left boards last week (my first day) on an icy day. Tested the Tinkler plate with BP hardware and the modded BP plate. I was pretty rusty and conditions were not ideal, both definitely helped with the rough conditions. I will save my comments until I can get more days on better conditions. Bryan PS. I love the idea of two screws, pull out axles, move to the next board and go!! PSS Fin, the "Wunder Bar" is the shizt!! Brilliant!! Edited December 15, 2012 by www.oldsnowboards.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Sean Martin has posted photos of his AF plate interface in the Vendor section. Simple but intriguing concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeho730 Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 A funky new plate, called Allflex plate http://allflexplate.com/index.php/en/ Makes sense... travel on each hinge: 4.5mm so total of 9mm. Max vertical movement of 6.4mm in the middle of the board. REALLY LOW stack height, needs new insert pattern. Estimate stack height would be around 15mm? Saw some photos of Black Pearl, Donek and Kessler racers with plates, so looks like the plate is very useful in racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 Saw some people training with these plates (red color) on the glacier of Kaunertal last autumn/fall 2012, and wondered what is was, thanks for sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 I think it needs some bugs worked out. Surface to surface will pack with snow (no clearance). Getting the plate off the board has more than one purpose. No variation in mounting position which is a huge factor in dialing in plate for your needs. Shred will love the "Swiss Cheese" factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 No variation in mounting position which is a huge factor in dialing in plate for your needs. I can't see from the website if there is only one mountingposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.