Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

[MikeC]

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.

The plate itself has very little flex. The reason you see Sean's plate flexing is because his elbow is pressing directly down on the middle of the plate. Your feet will be pretty much centred over the pivots, therefore reducing most flex. Any aditional flex would be cause any "Special K "movement in the legs. If people still use that move.

[Jack M]

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

Just thinking out loud. Yes, a plate that can fit a 4x4 insert pattern will sell more plates, of course, but I'm not optimistic that it would be the best or lightest design. Also it may sell less boards. I can imagine people thinking that a plate will breathe new life into a board they were about to replace, and it will to some extent. So then they buy a, what, $300? plate instead of a new board.

[bobdea]

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.

people get upset when you say that!

[SunSurfer]

From the point of view of mounting a plate system, using a 4x4 mount would be nice for backward compatibility. However a lateral mount system, as shown on the photo of Matt Morison's Kessler, has a significant mechanical advantage in transmitting tilting forces to the board edge.

The insert mounting pattern for lateral plate mounting points should be identical for Apex and other plate designs, certainly in terms of distance between adjacent mounting points on the long axis of the board.

How to fit this to narrower boards could be an issue, as any hinge/slide interface design is likely to have a fixed width, and the more lateral the attachment points the greater the mechanical advantage. To produce a system able to deal with a range of board widths may require more expensive tooling up and make it more difficult to produce at a reasonable cost.

From the point of view of using the plate system Sean is developing on a range of boards with a range of stance distances the answer is simple.

The hinge/slide interface between board and plate mounts wherever the inserts are on the snowboard. Anyone ordering a plate will have measured the distance between the inserts to be used on their snowboard.

Just as we have boards made in a range of sizes and shapes now, so the plate attached to that interface is customised for plate width & length, stance width, stance setback, plate stiffness and camber. Sean can make both custom snowboards and custom plates.

Sean, I like the way in which you have utilised the UHMWPE to create low friction but durable hinge and slide mechanisms. I was concerned about the wear characteristics of the apparently metal axle on metal frame & metal on carbonfibre/epoxy plate Apex design.

It was also nice to see directly shown in the video the mere millimetres of slide movement that need to be accommodated to allow quite substantial board flex.

I'll be thinking hard about the design concept you have come up with. Aaah, if only I had a computerised milling machine!

SunSurfer

[lowrider]

Ok now Sean of Donek has pipped up do you believe what i have been saying for a while ? (view previous posts) I have 8 plates in production I have hardware that mounts to 4x4 or 4x2 inserts. Is anyone riding in south america this summer that wants to try one of my plate hardware systems? :confused::confused:

[lowrider]

Jack where can i get a $300 plate???:lol:

[Donek]

I'll be thinking hard about the design concept you have come up with. Aaah, if only I had a computerised milling machine!

SunSurfer

I've got one of those. Send over your ideas. If they can be done cost effectively, perhaps they will be integrated.

[Donek]

Jack where can i get a $300 plate???:lol:

Jack is a pretty savy guy. That is the price goal on this system. He guessed it based on very few cues. I know I can do it based on the plate and uhmw parts, but machining that stainless was a pain. I'll probably have to farm it out. We'll have to see where the price comes in. Is it possible to cnc punch 1/8in stainless? Is that the correct term for those cnc machines that do sheet metal work?

[Donek]

Ok now Sean of Donek has pipped up do you believe what i have been saying for a while ? (view previous posts) I have 8 plates in production I have hardware that mounts to 4x4 or 4x2 inserts. Is anyone riding in south america this summer that wants to try one of my plate hardware systems? :confused::confused:

OK. I'm missing it. Have you posted pictures of your system? What thread?

[nekdut]

Sean, whats the minimum width you are targeting? I have some skinner boards that I would like to try a plate on, but the Vist I currently have is too wide for anything less than 19cm. I'd like to try a plate out on 17.5-18cm wide boards. BTW, the $300 price target is really competitive; you'll definitely get a lot of buyers, including myself.

[nekdut]

General question regarding plate design: all of these systems have the hinge point at the rear, however Tinkler boards + the plate lock the middle and float either end. I've tried Vist locked in the middle, but not the other configurations. Who here has tested out various locked states for plates such as these? Currently, only Vist allows this customization as far as I know. How do each of the other locked configuration feel underfoot?

It appears world cup riders follow the locked rear methodology. Is this most ideal for racing? Is a middle lock perhaps more appropriate for freecarving where constant ruts are less of an issue? Theoretically, a middle lock creates a smoother bend in the board, rather than a kink shifted somewhat back when the rear is locked. Just thinking out loud here, thoughts?

Sean, is your system configurable to lock the middle or front instead? Fin, how about yours?

[Donek]

Sean, whats the minimum width you are targeting? I have some skinner boards that I would like to try a plate on, but the Vist I currently have is too wide for anything less than 19cm. I'd like to try a plate out on 17.5-18cm wide boards. BTW, the $300 price target is really competitive; you'll definitely get a lot of buyers, including myself.

As it is right now, the hardware is just under 17cm wide. The plate is 19 up front and in back, but there's little reason not to narrow that for weight as long as the bindings don't overhang the edge. I'll examine that and reduce stuff a much as possible there.

[Donek]

General question regarding plate design: all of these systems have the hinge point at the rear, however Tinkler boards + the plate lock the middle and float either end. I've tried Vist locked in the middle, but not the other configurations. Who here has tested out various locked states for plates such as these? Currently, only Vist allows this customization as far as I know. How do each of the other locked configuration feel underfoot?

It appears world cup riders follow the locked rear methodology. Is this most ideal for racing? Is a middle lock perhaps more appropriate for freecarving where constant ruts are less of an issue? Theoretically, a middle lock creates a smoother bend in the board, rather than a kink shifted somewhat back when the rear is locked. Just thinking out loud here, thoughts?

Sean, is your system configurable to lock the middle or front instead? Fin, how about yours?

There's really no way to accomplish what these plates are doing by locking the middle. A stiff platform that retains your stance angles and cants would have to be locked at either end. If you lock the center the plate must bend.

There is no reason why you can't swap the front and rear pucks to lock the front and slide the rear.

I don't think there is any difference in the bending state of the board with the front or rear locked. Locking one does not alter the normal force to the board any differently than locking the other. A center loaded board might sounds more elegant, but flex patterns can be adjusted to make a board loaded in two points bend to the same shape a board loaded in one point bends.

[nekdut]

There's really no way to accomplish what these plates are doing by locking the middle. A stiff platform that retains your stance angles and cants would have to be locked at either end. If you lock the center the plate must bend.

What if the plate is sufficiently high enough off of the board to flex and the plate to remain fixed? Or would that end up being WAY too high.

Boards that would allow this would have Vist-like center inserts, or Tinkler-style.

There is no reason why you can't swap the front and rear pucks to lock the front and slide the rear.

Good to hear, do you know how this change feels/behaves underfoot?

I don't think there is any difference in the bending state of the board with the front or rear locked. Locking one does not alter the normal force to the board any differently than locking the other. A center loaded board might sounds more elegant, but flex patterns can be adjusted to make a board loaded in two points bend to the same shape a board loaded in one point bends.

I suppose that is what I was thinking, that center loaded board would create the "perfect" arc, or whatever that may mean. But that does make sense Sean, you being the builder, you could build the board to account for that. Does this mean you will be building boards with plate specific flex and those without?

[tufty]

There's really no way to accomplish what these plates are doing by locking the middle. A stiff platform that retains your stance angles and cants would have to be locked at either end. If you lock the center the plate must bend.

Not necessarily. The locking holds the plate fixed longitudinally WRT a specific place on the board. In your design it also holds the plate fixed in altitude WRT the board. I see no absolute reason why you couldn't have slotted pucks front and rear combined with, for example, vertical pins or similar holding the board "fixed" longitudinally but simultaneously allowing it to float vertically at that point.

Alternatively, fix the plate centrally and have your front and rear slots follow the arc described by the front / rear mounting points as the board curves (may require dedicated pucks for each front / rear insert position)

There's other ways of doing this, too.

That said, all the ways I can think of doing this would be heavier, require additional inserts for the centre fixing point, provide an additional point of failure, and I don't see any particular benefit in doing it.

[philw]

Hey, I think maybe this is one way I can finally make use of those Burton EST boards.... all I do is fit another board onto the fin-boxes, bolted on in the back slot and "free floating" in the front slot. :)

I can cut the middle bit out of an old 4x4 snowboard to make my own custom plate. I can paint it to look like carbon fibre.

The result: a rideable EST board.

---

Generally I find the complexity of these systems unattractive, although you have to ride them (which I haven't) to know if it's worth the trade offs.

I don't see a problem in changing from 4x4 - there's no real need to keep Alpine systems compatible with soft systems and our needs are clearly different from park people.

I can see from Sean's excellent video what that plate does, however I'm not sure (having not ridden these things) how much difference that can make. So you still have a "flat spot" under your back foot, so all you're doing is eliminating the front one, as someone above points out. The fact that my front foot moves relative to my rear one a few cm here and there as I ride... well why is that important?

If we're interested in "flat spots, would an alternative not be to make the binding mount points narrower fore-aft versus left-right, so the board's longitudinal flex is less affected (although there's a plate those mount into...).

[NateW]

Cool video, Sean. Before watching it I had no interest in plates whatsoever. Now, I'm intrigued.

But I still think a controlled experiment would be a good idea. Add a 3 pound riser underneath each binding, and see how that impacts the feel. You'll get the same extra height, and lots of damping, and it's so much easier to fabricate. :)

I'm not joking, actually. I wonder how much of the perceived benefit comes from those aspects vs. not being able to feel the board flexing underfoot.

[NateW]

What if the plate is sufficiently high enough off of the board to flex and the plate to remain fixed? Or would that end up being WAY too high.

I think you'd end up with a see-saw feel if it was anchored in the middle and floating an inch over the board at each end. You could fix the see-saw effect with a hinge the middle of the plate, and sliding mounts at the ends... but then you're no longer decoupling your binding cant/tilt from the flexing of the board.

[~tb]

So you still have a "flat spot" under your back foot, so all you're doing is eliminating the front one, as someone above points out.

Phil, Generally I think you have excellent and well founded points, but I think I disagree with you here.

I believe that if we were to freeze a board mid turn that has a plate system and analyze what is happening at the fixed and floating point, the forces (and therefore the flat spots) resolve identically. at any "frozen" point in time, we can assume the slider is stationary and therefore are acting just as two identical hinge points with forces normal to the board. If I were to take seans board with seans plate on it and strap it to my feet, and stand on my bed allowing the board to flex (as if mid turn), the flat spot on the front mount should look the same as the flat spot on the back mount.

(Though I have yet to ride one either) I believe that these plate systems are more about isolation the dynamic motion of the board as it undulates through turns and ruts from the lower body. This should allow a rider to be less fatigued and focus more on balance.

Keep the posts coming sean! Love the videos!

-Todd

[lowrider]

Front fixed, Rear fixed, Been there done that! rear fixed is slightly better. But slightly better on a plate is huge compared to no plate. Don't be thinking locked in front or rear like a seat belt in a car I'ts just two fulcrum points only one that slides. The front one sliding absorbes the shock smooths out the crud and makes a smooth path for the rear of the board to enjoy.

[Jack M]

So you still have a "flat spot" under your back foot, so all you're doing is eliminating the front one, as someone above points out.

There would not be a (big) flat spot under the back foot, because the plate is elevated off the board, and only touches the board via an "axle". The flat spot would only be as big as the hardware used to mount that axle to the board.

The fact that my front foot moves relative to my rear one a few cm here and there as I ride... well why is that important?

A big part of the whole point is that your feet do not move relative to each other. The board in a carve forms an arc. The plate forms a constant chord spanning that arc:

So if your board is the arc from B to X, the plate is the red line from B to X, and its length never changes. B is fixed in place but allowed to hinge, and X is free to slide or roll along the arc. From here you can imagine how as the board arc changes or undulates due to carving or impacting terrain, there is a reduction in impact to the rider, and the board enjoys greater freedom to flex independently of the rider.

I think the rear should be the fixed axle, because terrain impacts to the board generally come from the front.

The centrally fixed plate I am imagining would either need to be able to flex, thus eliminating or reducing the major benefits of the Apex style system, or it would depend on some squishy material between the plate and the board under both ends of the plate. I think that would be heavier and less effective, because it would affect the flex of the board.

[nekdut]

I think you'd end up with a see-saw feel if it was anchored in the middle and floating an inch over the board at each end. You could fix the see-saw effect with a hinge the middle of the plate, and sliding mounts at the ends... but then you're no longer decoupling your binding cant/tilt from the flexing of the board.

Must that be the case if you have the right sliding mounts? What if you used something like this on the ends:

http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30679

And fixed the middle, maybe somewhat wider than a single line of inserts, to combat the see-saw effect (but smaller than a binding footprint perhaps).

I'm still not sure how much this would gain us, but again, just thinking out loud here. Mike Tinkler must have a reason for a center mount versus the rear, or maybe that is just the way he builds the flex into his boards.

[philw]

The flat spot would only be as big as the hardware used to mount that axle to the board.

Agreed, although you could also slim-down the size of the mount plate for conventional, unlinked bindings. Why has no one just done precisely that without any additional plates ?

A big part of the whole point is that your feet do not move relative to each other.

Correct. My question was why does the fact that they move relatively on an un-plated board matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, merely asking why.

there is a reduction in impact to the rider, and the board enjoys greater freedom to flex independently of the rider.

Yes, you eliminate that few cm of movement. I'm surprised it makes that much difference.

I'm not against the concept, just exploring it.

[b0ardski]

I'm still not sure how much this would gain us, but again, just thinking out loud here. Mike Tinkler must have a reason for a center mount versus the rear, or maybe that is just the way he builds the flex into his boards.

A plate mounted flat to the board (ie Tinkler) must flex with the board. An elevated isolation plate separates the binding from the flex of the board and could be perfectly rigid and still allow the board to flex without dead spots.

The footprint of a plate binding and the footprint of an isolation plate mount are incomparable.

[KingCrimson]

Correct. My question was why does the fact that they move relatively on an un-plated board matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, merely asking why.

It's just another factor in removing feedback from the board. A consistent stance is also of benefit if not just for comfort.