Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

[Jack M]

Well I think you know I don't like a lot of binding flex. :) As for the flex of the plate, my understanding was that they are trying to eliminate it.

[lowrider]

A plate will negate certain input from a rider, it will also negate some sensation the rider feels from the board. I think most assumptions about plates and what they can do for you are only assumtions based on the actual plate you get to ride. The single most important thing to remember about a plate on any board is it changes everything you once knew about a particular board. And with so many options now available the variables are going to be difficult to separate and allow one to analyse precisely what inputs or feedback is responsible for a difference you either feel or think you feel. As a side note, my peddle plates (2) are finished and one has a willing victim (tester). It will allow the comparison of three functions . It is a regular plate, it is a plate that can hinge in the middle,and it is a hinged plate that can swivel in the middle to allow peddling. If the tester is willing to post and report thats great but it's up to him. I sent him the plate because he admitted in public he was a peddler,aren't we all to some degree? I'm willing to argue Jacks point about wider stance on a plate to the degree that a plate smooths your ride so much that that the actual need for a riders stance to challenge rough conditions is reduced by the effect of the plate. but a wider stance is always more stable and more comfortable as well. The preference to position your stance closer to the nose on metal boards is an interesting one since the ability to stuff the nose of the board is one i felt a few times in sloppy or deep firm snow.Still not sure if boards need to get softer in the nose for plates or thinner in the middle any ideas anyone ?

[queequeg]

Still not sure if boards need to get softer in the nose for plates or thinner in the middle any ideas anyone ?

My understanding (though I have yet to get on a plate) is that plates perform somewhat of a force multiplier on the front foot and that they tend to make the a board seem softer in the front than it would be without the plate. I would imagine you'w want the decks to be somewhat stiffer in the shovel.

[RCrobar]

Well I think you know I don't like a lot of binding flex. :)

This is a very good point Jack.

It is no secret that each riders' boot-binding set up is going to have a range of preferred set up options, from very stiff to very flexible. You are after no flex I prefer a lot, resulting in different conclusions. Seems to me that this makes it possible for more than one truth with regards to cants and stance width.

Cheers

Rob

[Apex Insider]

I will add my 2 cents about plate flex. I think there is some misconception floating around the community that binding interfaces are stiff planks that don't flex at all. Here's what we found:

During development, once we settled on a basic design (after 12 prototypes), we offered three different flex variations to the Canadian team - firm, medium, soft. Sorry that these are rather arbitrary and loose descriptions of flex. Somewhere we have real data from deflection gauges but I am too lazy to go find it.

The firm (which still flexed a bit) was immediately rejected by the team members. The ride was squirrelly and uncomfortable. Eventually, everyone on the National Team ended up on a medium flex which is why that is the only variation we now offer. Mark Fawcett said it best when he told me that you need some flex for the ride to be "user friendly". Perhaps as lowrider suggests, there was a loss of feel with a really stiff setup.

What we found is that all computer modelling and bench testing in the world wasn't worth squat. It was all about the feel on the snow. Absolutely nothing replaced on-snow testing and we only came up with the right layup and the right core profile only after many, many hours on snow.

Maybe some guys can adjust to a super-stiff plate but our real world experience was that even the best riders in the world couldn't or wouldn't race on one.

queequeg: you are bang on with that assessment. Kessler is doing just that and I'm pretty sure Bruce is as well.

[Steve Prokopiw]

a significant improvement when riding a plate in flat light? My skills diminish in flat light,especially on bumpy terrain,to the point that I'll head for the moguls or trees just to regain my depth perception and balance.

Seems like these plates would be a big help in that type of scenario.

ps,I hit the thumbs down accidentally:)

[Beckmann AG]

My skills diminish in flat light,especially on bumpy terrain...

This is often an indicator that a pair of boots is nearing the end of its career.

That, or the plastic is acoustically opaque to begin with.

[Steve Prokopiw]

This is often an indicator that a pair of boots is nearing the end of its career.

That, or the plastic is acoustically opaque to begin with.

My own assessment is that it is psycological;causing me to ride with less confidence and with more muscular tension when I might otherwise be relaxed.This is why I asked the question as it seems the point of most technology in this niche is to reduce effort and mitigate variables.

I have experienced the flat light/bumpy terrain conundrum in a variety of boots including new ones with moldable liners.Also, my depth perception in low or flat light is severely compromised,even on smooth terrain.(sore hips and wrists when trying to carve low are the results)Example;I wear glasses to drive as I cannot see what a sign says until I am within a few yards of it.Worse in low light,worst at night.I plan to invest in high-end prescription goggles at some point as my eyes are not getting any younger.For now I wear my glasses under goggles but this is not always workable depending on temps etc.

I like reading your scientifically informed posts.Perhaps you can elaborate on your response.For example;how boots currently being manufactured compare to each other in regard to your point.Does a new old stock boot lose it's ability to absorb etc?

[fin]

Currently we have several teams in town for the big race tomorrow and Friday at Copper. So I have had quite a good opportunity to quiz a few of the racers and coaches on what they are concluding and figuring out on these plate systems. Not to mention I have a few racers on the pre-production version of the plate and have been chatting with them quite a bit.

It seems most of them find that they did not need to change the stance width or cant/lift from their past "non-plate" set-up. This made sense to me as we tend to set these up to feel good/strong/stable while in a static position (i.e. living-room carpet set-up). But there seemed to be a huge swing in what they wanted as far as where their stance center was relative to the board and plate. Some said they had to move forward and other back to make it work. So somewhat inconclusive there.

A far as what is deemed acceptable on the flex of the plate itself we had better make the distinction on two very different approaches to plate design. I suspect this one was going to come up eventually so here we go

I categorize anything you put on top of a snowboard as:

• A Flex Modifier
  
• An Isolator
  

A device could have one or both but they are two very different functions. A Flex Modifier will alter and change the flex of the board. These can be rods, bars, extensions on a plate, etc, but their purpose is to change the way the flex of the board was originally intended. These have actually been around for quite some time for snowboards with limited acceptance.

An Isolator is just that, it want to do the opposite of the Flex Modifier in that it is trying to NOT effect the flex of the board. And at the same time keep the rider removed from the flexing and twist the board is doing.

Why define this? Well there are two philosophies on the current run of plates coming out. One direction is to make the plate with an extension on the nose (or even tail) that acts as a Flex Modifier to the nose of the board. The other camp is making plates with-out this nose extension. I have always been a fan of trying to make my hardware have the least impact on the flex of the board. The way I figure it this great group of alpine snowboard manufactures are really good at what they do, and I certainly do not have the ability to second guess their design much less try to modify it. Besides, these guys listen and act so I suspect they will be changing their boards to work better with plates as I have already been told by many of them.

That said if you design a plate with a nose extension we found it most certainly did need to have a certain amount of flex to it. Think about it, with a nose extension the geometry dictates that the nose will hit the board soon after starting a turn. Something has to give. So if you make a plate with a nose extension too stiff you really start influencing the flex of the board.

However, with a plate that does not have a nose extension, and acts as a pure isolator, you can make that plate very stiff with out effecting the flex of the board.

Of course you still effect the flex torsionally due to the interface with the snowboard but longitudinally they board is unaffected and allowed to do its thing.

As I mentioned in a past thread, we had a test plate that I set-up with interchangeable aluminum bars to change the flex of the plate. Honestly, what we found was that with plate that is a pure isolator the stiffer the plate the more isolation you got and better performance. If the plate was too soft it stopped isolating and it could even positive camber (flex upward) during a turn and that was really odd

Think of it this way, if you had a plate that was so flexible it matched the flex of the snowboard under it so when you went into a turn the plate decambered and matched the shape of the decambering board, what would be the point? These plates have a very cool aspect to them in that they keep our feet in plane with each other no matter what.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

a significant improvement when riding a plate in flat light? My skills diminish in flat light,especially on bumpy terrain,to the point that I'll head for the moguls or trees just to regain my depth perception and balance.

Seems like these plates would be a big help in that type of scenario.

ps,I hit the thumbs down accidentally:)

Steve, if you didn't make 36 runs showing off under the same chair lift doing 360 twirly gigs all the way down, it wouldn't be an issue

Look forward to seeing you out here in OR_E_GONE again!!

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

This is often an indicator that a pair of boots is nearing the end of its career.

That, or the plastic is acoustically opaque to begin with.

Good one!! :) ;)

[Steve Prokopiw]

Steve, if you didn't make 36 runs showing off under the same chair lift doing 360 twirly gigs all the way down, it wouldn't be an issue

Look forward to seeing you out here in OR_E_GONE again!!

I'm cured ! BTW, I try to limit my repetitions to a dozen or less per chair:)

Definitely want to get down there a couple of times this season.

[jp1]

Thank You Fin, for saying (writing it)!

"The way I figure it this great group of alpine snowboard manufactures are really good at what they do, and I certainly do not have the ability to second guess their design much less try to modify it."

This has been my contention from the beginning. That is not to say anything can not be made better, as the plates 'may' do (personally, I'm a believer). But to think what will happen when the builders start releasing a board that is designed to work with a plate as a Total System, should be Scary ( in a real Sweet Way) !!

[Beckmann AG]

Steve,

Altering or interfering with one or more of the senses will have an effect on your psyche and thus on your behavior. Back when helmets were bulkier and with fewer vents, it was common to feel faster and more confident while wearing one due to the relative silence when in motion.

We are somewhat reliant on our sense of touch to know where we are in space. Confusion here leads to tension, due to uncertainty. Tension interferes with flow, timing, accuracy etc, which further affects the psyche.

Boot plastic has a lifespan. My guess is that degradation from sunlight has the greatest impact. It used to be one would see Nordicas and Technicas with the toes missing. These boots were always badly faded.

Some boots are made of plastics that block vibration, possibly due to economics in manufacture, but also because it creates the impression for the user that they are skiing better than they really are, as the ride feels smoother. (Come to think of it, that's also economics...) The drawback is that such skiers rely more on their sense of sight, and always ski as though they are thinking about every move. In short, the brain doesn't really know where the feet are, and has a harder time making what should be intuitive movements.

I have seen this principle at work many times over. And also the effect when you change out to 'transmissive' boots.

I have used 'good' boots for hundreds of days past their service life with decent sensitivity, while I have used 'dead' boots that from day one that were a disappointment. I suspect that a set of 'barn fresh' quality boots, recent of cold storage in a box, should work just fine.

And by quality, I mean of good plastic.

Not being familiar with the actual composition of current offerings, I can't comment on which boots might be better than others.

Suffice to say, given the opportunity, I would build boots differently. There are many conflicting demands in the marketplace, and the manufacturers are giving the customers what they think they want in the manner most favorable to commercial success.

It sounds like you have some degree of visual impairment. Consider all the layers between the snow and the skin on the sole of your foot. Of those, how many will readily transmit vibration, and how many will not? 'Tighten up' the feedback loop, and life should get better.

[fin]

I vote we keep this thread on topic of Plate Systems and start another thread to talk about boots Or at least include a bikini shot with your post to keep the interest up.

jp1,

The fact of the matter is EVERTHING is a Flex Modifier because how can we possibly bolt ourselves to the board and not effect it's flex? But we can certainly minimize this to extreme levels and that is what these current crop of plates do.

I do also want to make this statement from our testing of many boards with plates:

A plate on ANY snowboard makes it ride better.

I know that is pretty bold thing to say and as someone who is now selling plates it might seem self-serving, but so far it seems to be true. Both Sean and I have done a ton of tests with boards that have long since been put away, for example, Snowman just mounted on on a Sims 197 Burner (10+ year old board!) and we also ran one on a traditional pre-metal, all fiber-glass Donek Freecarve. They rode better.

With that said, it is true that the current conclusion is that to OPTIMIZE the effects of the plate the snowboard guys are stiffening up the front of the boards. As stated earlier, Coiler, Kessler, Donek, and some of the other guys are all catching on to this and making the changes.

[Jack M]

During development, once we settled on a basic design (after 12 prototypes), we offered three different flex variations to the Canadian team - firm, medium, soft. ...

The firm (which still flexed a bit) was immediately rejected by the team members. The ride was squirrelly and uncomfortable. Eventually, everyone on the National Team ended up on a medium flex which is why that is the only variation we now offer. Mark Fawcett said it best when he told me that you need some flex for the ride to be "user friendly". Perhaps as lowrider suggests, there was a loss of feel with a really stiff setup.

I don't doubt your findings at all, but I think there is room for personal preference here. Surely Benjamin Karl with his silver medal and his all-aluminum plate would have something to say about this.

[fin]

Ah, Jack, you bring up a good point. Yes, Benjamin Karl did win Silver behind Mr. Jay on what is considered a very stiff plate system. If you have seen pictures of it it is constructed of aluminum and steel but has the same pivot/mechanism you are currently seeing on all most plates.

However, that was what I was trying to point out as a difference in these plates in my past post. Karl's plate does not have a Flex Modifier (as per many conversations with world cup racers/coaches who have seen his system up close. I have not seen it myself in person so I reserve the right to be wrong) but is just a single rigid plate. I think what Apex Insider was alluding to (please let me know if incorrect) if you do incorporate a Flex Modifier in your design, something has to flex somewhere to make that work. In that case I could absolutely see where a very stiff plate would not work well.

By the way, most racers I talk to and myself included give Benjamin Karl full credit for inventing and applying this plate concept from the get go. For those who don't know, Karl has been running this for close to four years on the World Cup circuit and done VERY well with it. As far as I am concerned he is the guy who deserves to go down in the record books as applying this to snowboards and racing.

[queequeg]

I don't doubt your findings at all, but I think there is room for personal preference here. Surely Benjamin Karl with his silver medal and his all-aluminum plate would have something to say about this.

Isn't his plate made of two aluminum rails that connect two solid plates at either end? I would imagine that that the rails would be able to flex quite a bit.

A question about the duckbill vs no duckbill thing. It would seem to me that given the force multiplier applied by plates, the duckbill design would be better suited for "older" boards that were initially designed to work before the introduction of plates (whose flex profile does not anticipate the additional forces applied by the plate), whereas the smaller plates would work better with board that DO anticipate this force multiplier.

Has anyone tried to come up with a design that is adjustable with regards to this, without having to resort to something like snow-stix to adjust the bill's stiffness?

[Jack M]

I would imagine that that the rails would be able to flex quite a bit.

Umm, no. They look to be square bars, very stiff.

[BlueB]

Has anyone tried to come up with a design that is adjustable with regards to this,

My understanding is that duckbill is adjustable, by the means of placing the dampener pad further forward or aft. Also, entire plate can be mounted further forward or aft on the sliders, to adjust the forward length of the duckbill (or at least it looked that way to me).

[fin]

queeqeg,

Take a look at this below picture. This is Benjamin Karl in course with his plate system. You are correct it is based from two areas for the feet attached by rails on each side. As I understand it, it is very rigid and does not flex much. Keep in mind everything flexes as nothing is truly 100% rigid, but in this case you can see that the plate he is on is pretty much flat compared to the board flexing under it.

You are correct though that new generation boards are being optimized for plates but it still does not change the fact that a plate makes ANY board ride better. But to optimize the use of a plate, I want to see the board guys do their magic which they have apparently been doing. Given a little more time, I think we are going to see some excellent board/plate combos.

[Jack M]

My understanding is that duckbill is adjustable, by the means of placing the dampener pad further forward or aft. Also, entire plate can be mounted further forward or aft on the sliders, to adjust the forward length of the duckbill (or at least it looked that way to me).

The effect of the duckbill is probably why the Canadian team didn't like a stiffer plate.

[GeoffV]

A plate on ANY snowboard makes it ride better.

Fin, how short of a board has a plate been tested on? I am very curious for example how a plate would impact the now dated Madd 158. The 58 is a nervous board that requires a lot of input and energy from a rider to make the board work and hold an edge.

This thread has some great discussion and is very insightful for those of us that have yet to try a plate out.

[Michael Pukas]

Lots of different topics being bashed around here lately, so here's my take on some of them...

You don't need to modify your stance or cants to ride a plate. Just as Fin said, we spend a lot of time setting up the perfect stance on the carpet - now with a plate we get to keep that perfect stance. Of course, once you start riding you may find what feels good on carpet doesn't always work on snow.

I think there's a point where a plate can be too stiff - but stiffer is better than not stiff is enough. I've only ridden a couple of protos, and didn't get to ride Trappy's plate, and I've found that a soft plate doesn't work as well as a stiff plate. If a plate is too soft, it transmits too much feedback and doesn't act as an isolator. But I think too stiff and you loose some connection to the board, especially at low speeds. Stiffer plates work better at high speeds.

Plates definitely add more force to the nose of the board, so boards need to compensate for this by becoming slightly more stiff in the nose, not less stiff. As Snowman said, when riding a plate you don't need to load the nose of the board as hard as without a plate - you can ride more centered on the board. In fact you can't load the nose of the board too much, or it will fold and/or wash out - happened to me many times on both toe and heel side turns.

A plate with a diving board trying to modify the flex of the board adds more forces to the plate itself and can cause failure of the plate (seen it). In theory it sounds like a good idea, and looks and sounds way cool - BlueB is right - bumpers can be positioned at different points under the diving board to hit the board in different places to adjust the flex as needed. But I don't think it works well in actual application - it puts a point load on the board where the bumper(s) is, and also further increases stress on the plate.

One advantage I see of the UPM vs 4x4 mounts is the UPM puts the pivots points out farther. With the pivot points farther outside the bindings, there's less ability to positively camber the plate (bend it up in the middle) by teeter-tottering the bindings, and the plate doesn't need to be quite as stiff. Until I get a plate mounted on a board w/ both UPM and 4x4 I won't know for sure.

[queequeg]

This "duckbill" nose modifier set up is too much to ask of a plate. The forces generated by using a plate to do two jobs (isolator and force multiplier) puts demands on the plate that the plate isn't designed for and the failure rate of this setup is high. They work just fine performing a singular function and keep in mind that plates already act as a force multiplier without a long nose and bumper set up pushing on the front of the board. How much force multiplication do you need?

Think Snow!

I would think the duckbill would reduce the effect of force multiplication rather than increase it (by dispersing the load away from the foremost axle connector and effectively stiffening the board the plate is mounted to once the bill makes contact with the deck) thus preventing the board from over-flexing at a single point. It seems designed to counteract the effects of force multiplication by distributing the additional power over a greater area.