Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

[Miltie]

Sean, Very cool video and explanation. Looks interesting! Keep us posted on the progress. Have fun at A-Basin!

Thanks!! Tom

[Donek]

No titanal no carbon no elastomere no steel edges no base and alot less wood than a board so if it costs 1/5 of a board and works this should sell like crazy!

It looks like a skateboard without wheels and i think it should cost as much as one!

The cost will be considerably less, but the volume will be nothing like skateboard production, so I'm certain it won't be that inexpensive. I think we're likely to be quite a bit less than most of the others.

[valsam]

Sean not all of us ride your boards but if your plate system doe's let's say 75% of what the other system do and cost's 75% less then be sure that most of us will buy it and you will have the sales volume that will allow the production cost to drop!

[Donek]

Sean not all of us ride your boards but if your plate system doe's let's say 75% of what the other system do and cost's 75% less then be sure that most of us will buy it and you will have the sales volume that will allow the production cost to drop!

Such a thing hinges on the ability to make it fit a 4X4 hole pattern of non standard dimensions. This is a big issue. Making something like this fit around all the hardware is quite tricky. There is not a standard stance width that everyone uses across the spectrum, making it even more difficult. Weight reduction is accomplished by making parts as small as possible. Slotted parts are bigger and heavier. I'm not saying it can't be done, as I haven't even really tried, but I see significant hurdles to such a proposal.

[BobD]

Seems to me that an economic plate system that only fits Donek boards, would sell a lot more Donek boards. Nothing wrong with that.

[b0ardski]

Being able to mount to any 4x4 board would be a HUGE selling point.

I know I could really benefit from an isolation plate on my very stiff 185 carbon race that would allow natural flex & give me a bit more power over the nose.

Without 4x4 compatibility sales volume would be squat except for the racing circles were hangl or vist inserts are some semblance of common.

I understand the advantage of mounting close to the edge; but plate mounting inserts will never be a "norm" on recreational boards and I know us recreational carvers would benefit.

Thanks for sharing the developement news Sean, it's exciting to see the niche progessing with new geometries & mounting tech.

vive la alpin

[kieran]

Being able to mount to any 4x4 board would be a HUGE selling point.

an important detail would be how much concave do you put on the base of the 4x4 mounting plate? you want it to transmit force to the edges of the board (where the custom plates mount), but not put so much force on the board that you change its longitudinal stiffness. without it being pre-stressed in some way, i think having the plate on top would lift the opposing mounting edge during a turn, limiting the area of contact over time.

agreed though, it'd be a huge seller. suddenly a whole world of binding angles would open up for me and my 31MP boots.

[Jack M]

(see video above)

OK.... so what you said in the video seems to severely contradict the camp that believes being able to use independent foot movements to bend the board into a tighter arc or otherwise "work" the board are good things.

Your impressions of this new breed of plate, along with the acceptance and dominance of this style of plate on the World Cup and in the Olympics seems to support my belief that bending or twisting the board with your feet to some benefit is a myth.

As for your plate, looks promising! I have to wonder whether the suspension benefit will offset the weight penalty. I didn't feel like the Vist was worth it, for freecarving, but this style of plate appears to work better, mechanically. I think minimizing weight should be your second priority - the first being getting the thing to work well and reliably, of course.

[OhD]

I wonder if the cantilevered front section of the Apex plate is designed to function as a vibration absorber, reducing the amplification factor for the nose of the board over some range of frequencies. It looks awfully stiff for a reasonable mass to work as an absorber, but there may be a lot less to it than meets the eye.

I find it implausible that it functions well to keep the nose from folding - if anything it would provide a fulcrum over which to break the nose, and a profound discontinuity in the board's flexural behavior if it didn't break. I guess it might prevent a break at the binding and have some useful margin between plate-topsheet contact and nose failure, but it seems like a pretty bulky bandaid. Maybe worth the weight if that's what it takes to keep an otherwise fantastic board in one piece.

[Jack M]

Being able to mount to any 4x4 board would be a HUGE selling point.

I don't think so. Think about it. We're going to see the emergence of a new standard insert pattern. When you buy your next board, you will choose whether you want 4x4 or Apex inserts (for lack of a better name). If you can't afford to buy a board from a company that will give you that option, you probably can't afford a plate either.

Being able to mount this to an old board you've been using for a season or three might be "nice", but if adherence to the 4x4 insert pattern increases the weight of the system, I don't think the industry should go there.

[kieran]

When you buy your next board, you will choose whether you want 4x4 or Apex inserts (for lack of a better name).

i'd briefly wondered if this would go as far as to change the binding insert pattern for bindings themselves, such that they'd be affixed to the board on inserts much nearer the sidewalls.

then i realised the extra weight of the binding being spread out that distance probably wouldn't make it feasible.

[pokkis]

We're going to see the emergence of a new standard insert pattern. When you buy your next board, you will choose whether you want 4x4 or Apex inserts (for lack of a better name).

I think it would better callit Hangl inserts, due even Apex calls it

The one that starts with "H" and ends in "angl".

[Donek]

OK.... so what you said in the video seems to severely contradict the camp that believes being able to use independent foot movements to bend the board into a tighter arc or otherwise "work" the board are good things.

Your impressions of this new breed of plate, along with the acceptance and dominance of this style of plate on the World Cup and in the Olympics seems to support my belief that bending or twisting the board with your feet to some benefit is a myth.

As for your plate, looks promising! I have to wonder whether the suspension benefit will offset the weight penalty. I didn't feel like the Vist was worth it, for freecarving, but this style of plate appears to work better, mechanically. I think minimizing weight should be your second priority - the first being getting the thing to work well and reliably, of course.

I have made the foot movement argument over and over myself. I thought I'd get on the plate I rode and immediately fall over because I was unable to pedal the board. That did not happen.

I believe I have already found about 1lb I can shed from it's mass. That's an estimation, but I see no reason I can't be down to about 5 lbs. A 184 with plate and bindings mounted to it is a beast. It's amazing what an additional 5lbs feels like when you pick up a board.

[Donek]

I think it would better callit Hangl inserts, due even Apex calls it

Unless Hangl has modified their pattern, this is not their pattern. I ran some boards with that pattern for prototyping last year. It's similar, but not the same thing. The Apex guys may have slots in their mechanism to accomodate both. I didn't look at that aspect of their design.

[Michael Pukas]

I wonder if the cantilevered front section of the Apex plate is designed to function as a vibration absorber, reducing the amplification factor for the nose of the board over some range of frequencies. It looks awfully stiff for a reasonable mass to work as an absorber, but there may be a lot less to it than meets the eye.

I find it implausible that it functions well to keep the nose from folding - if anything it would provide a fulcrum over which to break the nose, and a profound discontinuity in the board's flexural behavior if it didn't break. I guess it might prevent a break at the binding and have some useful margin between plate-topsheet contact and nose failure, but it seems like a pretty bulky bandaid. Maybe worth the weight if that's what it takes to keep an otherwise fantastic board in one piece.

As far as I have seen, the diving board is basically there for the user to add bumpers at his discresstion to "modify" the flex on the front of the board. If no bumpers are used, the diving board doesn't come in contact w/ the board, unless the board is bent to a very extreme degree - and at that point it may break on it's own. The diving board is just a carbon fiber plank extension of the plate itself. Between the bindings the plate has stiffening ribs on the underside, and they do not extend to the diving board section.

[Michael Pukas]

OK.... so what you said in the video seems to severely contradict the camp that believes being able to use independent foot movements to bend the board into a tighter arc or otherwise "work" the board are good things.

Your impressions of this new breed of plate, along with the acceptance and dominance of this style of plate on the World Cup and in the Olympics seems to support my belief that bending or twisting the board with your feet to some benefit is a myth.

As for your plate, looks promising! I have to wonder whether the suspension benefit will offset the weight penalty. I didn't feel like the Vist was worth it, for freecarving, but this style of plate appears to work better, mechanically. I think minimizing weight should be your second priority - the first being getting the thing to work well and reliably, of course.

The plate may not be for everyone. If you're into bending, twisting and pedaling the board as you ride, then a plate is not for you.

It certainly doesn't completely isolate you from the snow, and there is a little but of a sensation of riding on air. It's like a car suspension - you feel in contact with the surface, but the bumps are smoothed out.

Pesonally, I could care less about all that board manipulation stuff. So far the extra wieght is worth it. Of course lighter is better!

[Jack M]

I have made the foot movement argument over and over myself. I thought I'd get on the plate I rode and immediately fall over because I was unable to pedal the board. That did not happen.

I'm not surprised! ;)

A 184 with plate and bindings mounted to it is a beast. It's amazing what an additional 5lbs feels like when you pick up a board.

Agree completely. That was my impression when mounting up the Kessler 185 with the Vist. It was too much for my freecarving tastes. In the carve, sure, it was great, but in every other aspect of a day of snowboarding, no thanks.

[Michael Pukas]

I don't think so. Think about it. We're going to see the emergence of a new standard insert pattern. When you buy your next board, you will choose whether you want 4x4 or Apex inserts (for lack of a better name). If you can't afford to buy a board from a company that will give you that option, you probably can't afford a plate either.

Being able to mount this to an old board you've been using for a season or three might be "nice", but if adherence to the 4x4 insert pattern increases the weight of the system, I don't think the industry should go there.

Bold statements, Jack, and I completely disagree w/ you on most of them.

Having a plate that can mount to a 4x4 insert pattern WILL sell more plates - pleople will but them just to try them - on their old boards and new ones. A board doesn't have to be designed for a plate to be ridden with a plate.

Re: affordability, if you can't afford a new board f/ Sean, maybe you can afford his reasonably priced plate to put on your 4-year old Donek to ride until you can afford a new deck. One of Sean's goals is to make a plate afforable so everyone who wants one can ride one. Think about it...

There's not going to be a significant difference in weight between a plate for a Modified Hangl, Hangl or 4x4 pattern. There are other, bigger issues than weight when considering which insert pattern to use... one of the problems as Sean mentioned is there is no standard stance width for a 4x4 pattern, so even if you buy a plate for a 4x4 pattern and plan to put it on your old board w/ a 4x4 pattern, it may not fit - the spread may be too different.

As far as insert patterns go, Apex does not use the hangl (edit - I could be wrong) - it's uses what we've been hearing called the Modified Hangl - not sure if that's what it really is or not, but that's what we've been calling it. All of the boards Sean has been making for testing have both his 4x4 pattern and Modified Hangl. (edit - I'm still a little confused on the whole insert thingy...)

[pokkis]

Insert pattern, this is copy from Apex site:

The Apex Race Plate won't work on standard 4x4 inserts. It fits inserts set up for that other plate. The one that starts with "H" and ends in "angl".

[b0ardski]

As far as differing widths of 4x4 sets, since the rear is mounted solid & the front slides, the front mount could be slotted to accomodate this. One inch of slot should cover any set difference.

[Michael Pukas]

As far as differing widths of 4x4 sets, since the rear is mounted solid & the front slides, the front mount could be slotted to accomodate this. One inch of slot should cover any set difference.

That's exactly the issue - there's a limit to the slot size, and where the sliding pivot falls in that slot. There is some room to accomodate different widths, but there's a limit to that...

[b0ardski]

Pedaling on narrow race board may have a minimal affect on longitudinal flex; any torsional flex would be accomplished by lateral knee movement.

With lower angles on a wider board pedaling definitely has some torsional effect.

[b0ardski]

"That's exactly the issue - there's a limit to the slot size, and where the sliding pivot falls in that slot. There is some room to accomodate different widths, but there's a limit to that..."

I was thinking slotted mount holes on the base & the plate.

[Scorpio]

I haven't been following all the technical talk and mechanics of the plate system. For us non-engineering minded folk, how will the average consumer who doesn't understand the science behind it order their boards going forward with this type of system?

I see this as a board (plate) mounted on top of your board. So traditionally, without the plate, your weight is directly flexing the board. With the plate, you are flexing the plate to a certain degree and then the board. Does this mean, you'll have to order a board with a soft flex since you'll be bending two things instead of one? So if I'm a 150lb person that orders a board with a given flex, now I need to order a board with a flex meant for a 130lb person since I'm mounting something on top to bend as well?

If the advantages as Sean states that noticable, I'd be willing to explore the plate system idea assuming costs and benefits are significant enough.

Please clarify.

[Michael Pukas]

was thinking slotted mount holes on the base & the plate.

Ahhh, good point!