Modding your Bomber Boiler Plate?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Steve, I think you may be surprised how little that slot changes it's flex. The BP plate is super burly. I would guess (for me) I would feel allot more difference due to the SW bindings. As much as I believe the SW hardware IS huge change in the Bomber bindings options. I tend to think that the small amount of absorption that the E pads provide are magnified by the plate height and or distance from the edge.

I believe that mounting directly to the plate is something that will become more common in the future.

The ultimate balance between the height and isolation/flex has yet to be discovered. Some of the work Mike is doing right now seems to be getting closer to that balance point.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

I'm convinced tinkering around is always a good thing i applaud your effort. Straying very far from your normal toe heel lift my not prove very useful but lowering stack height is. Good Luck !

Agree, I am not ready to give up my "normal" stance for height, yet. The trick is coming up with safe, strong, options that will allow direct mounts to be canted and structurally sound. I don't need adjust-ability , just strength. Just know that mounting separate toe and heel blocks can seem simple and have been done successfully (somewhat) many years ago. It does toss some serious dynamics into the mix. The "base plate" of the Bomber bindings is not just there for looks. WARNING. It is not to be dismissed lightly and could cause catastrophic failure if not approached with great caution.

PS. Curious, how many plates were seen at SES? In the videos I only see Fin on the BP ? Where are all the DIY jobs out there? That DIY kit, Fin generously made available, has not born any fruit?

Edited February 28, 2013 by www.oldsnowboards.com

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

...And in the ultimate 'dirtbag carver experiment on an almost pristine Oxygen 185 Proton,I decided to try and to low profile mount the Sidewinders -about 3/8" lower than using the Bomber cant discs.By virtue of several layers of rubber matting I managed to get about 1 1/2 to 2 degrees of toe and heel lift and cant. I'm running a 20 1/4 " stance,and used modified Blax aluminum center discs to hold it all down.Seems to do a powerful job in holding the baseplate down on the rubber matting.The slot in the plate is 9 1/2 " long and about 3/8"" wide.I went conservative and didn't cut out a whole lot.I did place the slot farther toward one end than the other. I'll find out how it works on the hill in the morning.If it all explodes in a blaze of glory well;Woohooooo!

Cool beans Steve. You have allot of things going on there. Look forward to the reports.

I think one of the side effects I don't hear folks talk about is the "tipping" effect of pushing around with the back foot out.

The softer the board / softer the plate can make it feel very odd when you pressure forward. If the board is very soft and or the plate is soft (not the BP) it can pivot on the front axis and feel like you are going over. Heads up :) This largely goes away when you have both feet in. It does point out an interesting "Tipping Point":eplus2:

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Hi Bryan,

I'm considering isolation plates on some of my decks and have some questions.

How ride differ on different pivot distances. I hope below figures represents what i was trying to ask.

I'm comfortably ride 55cm on GS decks but I prefers narrower stance (50cm)on camber decks (see fig. 4). Most of plates can configure Pivot distance from 55 to 65 cm.

Would you describe how ride differs on each configured setup that I illustrated below??

Thanks!

First, thanks for the diagram , it is VERY useful.

I am short of time right now, I will tell you that I have found I prefer being rearwards of the axis on the front mount. If you look at the photos I just posted you will see that I have a pretty wide pattern of the base mounts with my toe and heel over the axles. I like the stability of that stance, although it does seems to make the board "run" longer. Being forward of the front placement gets a bit weird, feels like I am going to taco the board. I am looking at some alternatives to my current placements however time on snow has not been what it used to be. So test opportunities are limited. Some of the changes I want to make are more related to my powder longboards and how it can keep an old fart rippin for a few more years :)

Off hand I am probably set up closest to the Fig 3 diagram.

Tip. Think about what changing your stance on a non plated board does to the flex of the board. That is what the plate base plates tend to do too. Narrow = softer , Wide = stiffer

This really makes a big difference on the front of the boards flex when you stall or go nose heavy.

Edited February 28, 2013 by www.oldsnowboards.com

[Corey]

If the board is very soft and or the plate is soft (not the BP) it can pivot on the front axis and feel like you are going over. Heads up :)

I definitely noticed this on one of the plates lowrider lent me a few years ago. They were on the softer side (a little softer than a 4mm Lite BP) and I couldn't get the axle far enough forward to suit my taste. Pushing around required a bit of discipline, and I still had a few of those 'emergency' moments where I was certain I was about to fall on my face over the nose of the board, only to be completely fine.

[ExcelsiorTheFathead]

I’m riding a 4mm Lite with an axle spacing of 50cm, the innermost (“Hello Kitty”) setting. My stance width is around 48.25cm. I am using 4-hole bases on 4x4 inserts and had to flip the sliding front base around backwards in order to make this configuration work on my particular board. My bindings are mounted centered almost directly above the axles. My rear heel is behind the rear axle, and my front toe is forward of the front axle. While I am aware that getting too much weight too far forward might cause the plate to bend upwards in the middle, I don’t think that I’ve had that problem as a small stature, low weight rider. The 4mm Lite seems plenty stiff to me.

I haven’t experimented much, but as someone who likes to turn hard and go slow, having the axles in tight seems to work well. I don’t have any feeling that the plate delays turn initiation or keeps the board from turning as tight as it does plateless. For all I know, it might turn harder than it does without a plate.

As for modifications, I have replaced the steel axles with aluminum ones to save weight. I’ve got about 4 days of riding on them and they haven’t failed yet, but I don’t recommend this to anybody.

[Steve Prokopiw]

...And in the ultimate 'dirtbag carver experiment on an almost pristine Oxygen 185 Proton,I decided to try and to low profile mount the Sidewinders -about 3/8" lower than using the Bomber cant discs.By virtue of several layers of rubber matting I managed to get about 1 1/2 to 2 degrees of toe and heel lift and cant. I'm running a 20 1/4 " stance,and used modified Blax aluminum center discs to hold it all down.Seems to do a powerful job in holding the baseplate down on the rubber matting.The slot in the plate is 9 1/2 " long and about 3/8"" wide.I went conservative and didn't cut out a whole lot.I did place the slot farther toward one end than the other. I'll find out how it works on the hill in the morning.If it all explodes in a blaze of glory well;Woohooooo!

I tried this setup today on greens blues and one black run and loved it!The lower stack height outweighs the minimal adaptation I am making to only slightly less cant and toe and heel lift than I had before.I was only using 3 degree cant discs with most of that 3 degrees adjusted toward lift anyway.I have about 2 degrees of cant and lift with this new setup and barely notice a difference, as another adaptation I made was to narrow my stance from 20&5/8" to 20 &1/4".That seemed to be the right compromise and I'm a happy camper!Loved the heel side but may slide everything back a cm or so as the nose feels short on toesides and I got myself in a little trouble:very nearly flipping after getting into the toeside aggressively.Overall I am pleased and the customized discs did an excellent job of keeping it all together. Rednecktech-it's part of the fun ;-)

Edited March 1, 2013 by Steve Prokopiw

[Beckmann AG]

I think one of the side effects I don't hear folks talk about is the "tipping" effect of pushing around with the back foot out.

The softer the board / softer the plate can make it feel very odd when you pressure forward. If the board is very soft and or the plate is soft (not the BP) it can pivot on the front axis and feel like you are going over. Heads up :) This largely goes away when you have both feet in. It does point out an interesting "Tipping Point"

This point is reminiscent of clipless bicycle pedals and 'rocking torque'. The original Time pedal had a lower stack height between axle centerline and foot POC, and was thus purported to allow for a 'rounder' pedal stroke. (As compared to the Look pedal, for instance.) Also, the shorter stack reduced the need for 'stabilizing' tension within the musculature while pedaling, a benefit in terms of reducing parasitic load on the 'motor', so to speak.

Extending the analogy a bit further, if you consider the effects of where one puts the pedal axle with regard to the foot in cycling, one could achieve similar effects with the location of the front binding relative to the front plate axle. In cycling, the idea is to locate the spindle to drive the crank with the greatest effect. Too far forward and the heel drops, overloading the Soleus/Gastrocnemius; too far back and the foot wants to 'flip' over the top of the pedal, thus involving the hamstring.

Either one interferes with power output/efficiency.

So, if the plated rider tends to 'tip' forward while on one foot, it could be assumed that with both feet in, the rear foot is being recruited to account for some of the instability of the front foot. It could be assumed that, as the board becomes more reactive with speed/load etc, the compensating demands on the rear foot will increase somewhat geometrically.

In other words, a 'tipping' front binding location would not be considered 'neutral' and should be moved accordingly.

[~tb]

This point is reminiscent of clipless bicycle pedals and 'rocking torque'. The original Time pedal had a lower stack height between axle centerline and foot POC, and was thus purported to allow for a 'rounder' pedal stroke. (As compared to the Look pedal, for instance.) Also, the shorter stack reduced the need for 'stabilizing' tension within the musculature while pedaling, a benefit in terms of reducing parasitic load on the 'motor', so to speak.

Extending the analogy a bit further, if you consider the effects of where one puts the pedal axle with regard to the foot in cycling, one could achieve similar effects with the location of the front binding relative to the front plate axle. In cycling, the idea is to locate the spindle to drive the crank with the greatest effect. Too far forward and the heel drops, overloading the Soleus/Gastrocnemius; too far back and the foot wants to 'flip' over the top of the pedal, thus involving the hamstring.

Either one interferes with power output/efficiency.

So, if the plated rider tends to 'tip' forward while on one foot, it could be assumed that with both feet in, the rear foot is being recruited to account for some of the instability of the front foot. It could be assumed that, as the board becomes more reactive with speed/load etc, the compensating demands on the rear foot will increase somewhat geometrically.

In other words, a 'tipping' front binding location would not be considered 'neutral' and should be moved accordingly.

Eric,

I like your analogy of the bike pedal, however, I am not sure if I agree with your conclusion.

I personally would not recommend any adjustments to a plate sytsem based on how it feels when only one foot is clipped in as this is NOT the position your body is in while riding. This would be like saying, if your foot doesn't feel right on your bike pedal while stopped with one foot unclipped during a water break that you should make adjustments to your setup.

When skating around with only one foot clipped in, your weight distribution is well off, and you are imparting torques and forces on the system that are simply not there while riding. In this state, unless you either move the axel several inches beyond the front binding and or ride a VERY stiff plate this rocking or tilting will still be present.

I do agree with OSB.com's original point that this tipping is a downside (more prevelant on some plates than others) that is not discussed much. I would however add the context that most of the plates that I have ridden that demonstrate this "downside" have also been the most rideable plates for a freecarver.

out of curiosity, what plates are you riding these days?

[lowrider]

This point is reminiscent of clipless bicycle pedals and 'rocking torque'. The original Time pedal had a lower stack height between axle centerline and foot POC, and was thus purported to allow for a 'rounder' pedal stroke. (As compared to the Look pedal, for instance.) Also, the shorter stack reduced the need for 'stabilizing' tension within the musculature while pedaling, a benefit in terms of reducing parasitic load on the 'motor', so to speak.

Extending the analogy a bit further, if you consider the effects of where one puts the pedal axle with regard to the foot in cycling, one could achieve similar effects with the location of the front binding relative to the front plate axle. In cycling, the idea is to locate the spindle to drive the crank with the greatest effect. Too far forward and the heel drops, overloading the Soleus/Gastrocnemius; too far back and the foot wants to 'flip' over the top of the pedal, thus involving the hamstring.

Either one interferes with power output/efficiency.

So, if the plated rider tends to 'tip' forward while on one foot, it could be assumed that with both feet in, the rear foot is being recruited to account for some of the instability of the front foot. It could be assumed that, as the board becomes more reactive with speed/load etc, the compensating demands on the rear foot will increase somewhat geometrically.

In other words, a 'tipping' front binding location would not be considered 'neutral' and should be moved accordingly.

The fact that you feel instability "toe tipping". means something isn't right. I believe the tipping point you mention can be overcome by moving front UPM inserts more forward in future board designs well beyond present distances. I don't hold much hope for the snowboarding world to come to the same conclusion any time soon. Consider how different the geometry of a board is with and without a plate and the huge impact your footprint has on board flex without a plate. A plate requires a huge leap in trust that it will be there for you when required. That trust comes when you quit worrying about old technique, balancing fore and aft to compensate for your percived traction in sketchy conditions and embrace the plates ability to ride you through tough conditions without over guessing. Let the plate do what it does best. It will provide you with better edge hold, suspension in bumps and crud and probably a better day of riding in less than perfect conditions. If you ride your plate with your weight back or forward your not riding in the best position for the plate to perform at it's best. As more people experience plates perhaps they too will conclude the front UPM mounts could be more forward. Ok flame me now!

[Beckmann AG]

out of curiosity, what plates are you riding these days?

I’m not. Most of my time on snow is spent working, and for that duty, lower speed maneuverability trumps the benefits, both real and perceived, of an isocline.

Strangely, (or not) a board/binding configuration that works well in a low energy context will often work just as well in a higher energy context. (The other way 'round, not so much). Most of this has to do with which ‘limb segments’ are involved in board guidance, and whether or not they are tethered to adjoining limb segments.

Much of which comes down to ‘reactive’, or stabilizing muscle tension.

One of the obvious benefits of a plate is the tendency to block, if you will, unintentional torsional inputs from the rider to the board. This ensures that the board ‘runs true’ which in turn requires less stabilizing effort on the part of the rider. A board twisted in the cut will behave somewhat erratically, which requires muscle response, sensible or insensible, on the part of the rider. All of which tends to ‘solidify’ the entire mass of the rider, which in turn challenges balance, fatigues the rider etc.

Returning to the pedal spindle analogy, if the spindle is fore or aft of ideal, the smooth and elastic elongation of the leg on the power stroke will be compromised due to foot stabilization. In the context of off-road riding, this will also impair the rider’s ability to ‘float’ the terrain while pedaling, and thus rate of travel is affected.

The prevalence of various ‘cushioning’ systems in hardbooting is a pretty clear indicator that many riders are not capable, for one reason or other, of using their legs as an effective suspension.

I personally would not recommend any adjustments to a plate sytsem based on how it feels when only one foot is clipped in as this is NOT the position your body is in while riding. This would be like saying, if your foot doesn't feel right on your bike pedal while stopped with one foot unclipped during a water break that you should make adjustments to your setup.

That’s hardly an apt comparison. If a rider is skating, gliding, or riding on one foot, the board/rider system has gone ‘live’. The cyclist with one foot down is, for all intents and purposes, a ‘dead’ system.

The ‘position’ a body assumes once in motion is quite often dictated by the ‘reactivity’ of the device in action between the athlete and the working surface. Which is to say, though a rider may think they are riding their board, quite often, the board is riding them.

Continuing with the bicycle comparison, evaluating binding configuration two-footed is analogous to riding a stationary trainer with a triangulated, or ‘fixed’ rear wheel. Riding one-footed is analogous to riding rollers, whereby there is very little stabilizing momentum to hide the effect of the rider’s position and/or relationship to the control surfaces.

When skating around with only one foot clipped in, your weight distribution is well off, and you are imparting torques and forces on the system that are simply not there while riding.

A reasonable, assertion, but one you might want to reconsider in light of the primary inputs affecting the board and it’s response.

Obviously, the use of a plate adds material to the mix, but the behaviour of the board will still be affected by how and where you apply pressure to the top sheet, and the extent to which the board is tilted to one edge or the other.

It is not unreasonable to assume that if a rider’s stability is somehow compromised in the absence of rear foot attachment, that when riding two-footed, the two contact points will always be co-dependent.

Which may not be desirable in the end.

I’m not suggesting that elimination of the ‘tipping’ sensation is a valid baseline for front binding location. Rather, that spindle location relative to point of load should be carefully evaluated with regard to compensatory use of the rear foot.

Also, that the reduction in stack height will likely prove advantageous here, as it does in cycling.

[Beckmann AG]

words and stuff...

If that all was directed toward me, I think you may be making a few untoward assumptions.

[lonbordin]

The prevalence of various ‘cushioning’ systems in hardbooting is a pretty clear indicator that many riders are not capable, for one reason or other, of using their legs as an effective suspension.

To keep right on going with the biking analogy... Suspensions in mountain bikes have lead to new speeds over exceptionally difficult terrain. My point is that there is a point at which not even the most seasoned/skilled athlete cannot adjust rapidly enough to the changes in environment and this is where the suspension/plate comes into play.

That said it's also possible to ride balanced with a plate, even with just one foot in the bindings (Goto 2:51 seconds in the following video):

[SunSurfer]

 

BBP 4mm with a few extra holes. Ah well, it was already past its' 1 year warranty!

Call it UPM+, matching up with the extended UPM insert packs I got Bruce to put into a Coiler NSR in 2012 (and have never got round to utilising till now) and a similar set I've recently put into my current experimenting board, a Coiler AM 177. The max inter-axle distances, in the "at rest" position, now go to just over 71cm on the Bomber mechanical setup on the AM, and the NSR goes out to 73.5cm, with the plate top surface 22mm above the board at the point the axles are, using my latest design mechanicals. Both are coming with me to SES 2015.

Edited January 4, 2015 by SunSurfer

[lowrider]

Wow when the snow melts you really get right to it don't you ? Longer and lower can never be a bad thing when it comes to modifying a plate. I think you can add a few more  holes  between the axle mounts and binding mounts to lighten it a bit more.  Maybe shave a little on the tip and tail larger indent in the tip ?   

[SunSurfer]

Longer and lower can never be a bad thing when it comes to modifying a plate.

Hey man, I pimped my ride! Now I just need to slouch down, and carve wearing a hoodie!

 

I don't know yet if the final new SunSurfer axle units will be lighter than Fin's, but they will be lower. The axles are essentially at the end of the plate, which allows a lower plate without the plate impinging on the axle housings as the board bends in the carve. I can't get too much lower without the middle of the plate contacting the board due to the camber.

 

The outer  2 extra holes are for the Bomber axle units. The inner set of new holes (9cm x 2cm rectangle corners) are for the SunSurfer system.

[SunSurfer]

 

Ready for Aspen in 19 days time.

 

[SunSurfer]

Have had the chance to run the UPM+ version back to back with my previous "best so far" standard UPM setup.

Conclusion: a plate can be too long for my liking.

 

I prefer the solid feel I get with the fixed axle essentially under the skin crease at the base of my big toe, between the two major sites humans use to apply balancing forces with their feet, the ball of the foot and the big toe (the smaller toes are much less important but this setup gets them roughly over the axle as well). They allow the use of the lower leg and foot muscles to let you rock back and forward. Try maintaining your balance only standing on your heels if you want a contrast.

I've got a 29cm foot. From tip big toe to the skin crease is 6.5 cm. That means the crease is 8cm in front of the middle of my foot. At the 65 degree binding angle I use, the centre of my binding needs to be approx. 7cm from the line of the axle to place the crease over the axle.

 

The shock absorption is still very good with the front axle fixed, I've been happily carving through the late afternoon lumps at Snowmass. Remember, the mechanicals isolate the flex of the board from the plate, and the whole board flexes along its' length when it hits a lump.

 

Edited for typos and extra detail:

Stance 50cm C-to-C, 65F , 60R, axles at the max. 62cm apart, axles bosses in the standard holes on 4mm Bomber Boiler Plate.

Straightforward with UPM inserts, but also my Kessler slalom board has enough inserts to achieve it with a 4x4 plate mounting kit.

Overall effect is about 1cm setback of the bindings relative to the plate centre.

Edited February 4, 2015 by SunSurfer

[Beckmann AG]

^By 'skin crease', are you talking the interspace between first met distal/first phalange proximal?

[SunSurfer]

^By 'skin crease', are you talking the interspace between first met distal/first phalange proximal?

Yes, the skin crease on the sole of the foot underneath the joint between the distal 1st metatarsal and the 1st proximal phalanx.

Just trying not to use technical language, but still be unambiguous.