Zone Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Lol you're welcome. Happy reading! Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Sunsurfer, there are lots of problems with your pics, but can't address them now... Yeah, plenty of limitations but getting a clear series of pictures with sufficient reference points that would enable you to compare the various angles while carving a turn in real life is way beyond my technology. The pictures come as screenshots from a single 1920x1080 video to keep the view/background constant. Boots not worn to try and show what's happening to the joints, hence also the markers drawn on my skin before I shot the video. Oh, and my rear ankle is still quite stiff after I ruptured my Achilles 6 months ago. The point I'm trying to make is that while over a pair of linked carved turns a skier's hips/knees/ankles will both go through the same range of movements this is not so for a snowboarder. My impression is that my rear ankle, in particular, flexes more than the front. The pictures are there to try to make that single point more clearly. So for a skier having both boots with the same flex makes sense. It doesn't necessarily make sense for a snowboarder. If I remember correctly, you're a ski and snowboard instructor, so I'd value what you have to contribute to this discussion. I'm aware that I often look at the same stuff as other people, but frequently come to different conclusions from the "received wisdom". Edited February 5, 2014 by SunSurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipstar Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 @ Sunsurfer I think a lot of it is to do with hip alignment; I am guessing you ride with your hips facing forward more than the average angle of your bindings, so this is part of the reason why your rear leg is flexing quite a lot more, as it needs to bend more to 'catch up' to the front leg since - if your hips are aligned with your bindings, and we use the more modern race style technique of almost no rotation, and just dropping our hips into the turn, angulating the board then pressuring the edge, the variation between the 2 legs reduces although I agree it probably doesn't disappear completely. From personal experience this season eliminating the fore-aft drive into through and out of turns and reducing rotation certainly balances up the two legs to be used more evenly, and then the flex of each boot can be more similar. When I went through the last few years riding much more rotation, I noticed the need to have a loser rear boot in the cuff, this faded as I changed my technique and the angle of my neutral position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Kipstar, I ride 65 front & 60 degrees rear, and yes I do ride with my pelvis and upper body aligned so that my whole trunk and head is facing forward. I feel like I drive my edges with the sides of my boots from the knees, rather than with my heels and toes by ankle movement and fore/aft flex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I am huge friend of flexible setups combined with a strong muscular basis that can provide stiffness whenever needed (rather than just stiffen up the setup and let it do the work.) I play the piano infrequently; but when I do, I don't go to the gym two weeks before and max out on bicep/tricep curls and the bench press. I do, however, pay attention to my posture, and the firm, rather spartan bench, as those affect my relationship to the piano, finesse of finger work, and personality of delivery. Regardless of how you choose to ride your snowboard, your relationship to your boot shells and their relationship to each other have a bearing on the outcome. A shell that is too stiff will limit range of motion, flexibility, and versatility. To say little of the jarring ride and translation of unintentional inputs from the rider to board. Stiffer boots frequently block the learning curve, as they are unforgiving of unintentional movements. Shells that are too soft will impair proprioception, as well as dull the feedback to the rider from the board and it's activity with the snow. If the shells have too much give, the rider will expend unnecessary effort trying to stabilize their position atop the deck. This excess muscle activity hastens fatigue, while compromising the compliance between rider and surface. Use of boots that flex further than the range of a the affected ankle joint can lead to injury. The idea, then, is to find the boot configuration that allows the rider to execute their desired technique and fulfill their chosen identity with the fewest tradeoffs. A boot configuration that establishes and maintains a productive link between rider and board. Many, in both hardbooting and skiing, see the boot plastic as a 'lever of activation'. They might do better to think of it as a 'lever of stabilization'. Stabilization such that the lower 'half' of the body is free to move as needed in order to ensure a rider's effortless equilibrium in motion. The board in motion is, after all, a 'living thing' which wants to act upon the rider just as much as the rider wants to act upon the board. Should I need to flex into the tongues of my boots to make my skis turn? No. Should I need to flex into the tongues of my boots to make my board turn? Probably not. Are both valid tactics from time to time to affect board/ski performance? Certainly. 'Right' and 'Wrong' come into play when a rider does not fully understand the limitations of their configuration, how that choice affects their ability to get where they want to go, and needs relevant information to move ahead. Enough flex/comfort is good, too much is a hindrance. Herman Miller offers some very nice seating options. You probably won't see any of those at the Steinway. Sunsurfer, there are lots of problems with your pics, but can't address them now... Kindly elaborate, when you get the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I definitely preferred softer boots such as the old Raichle 423's in free ride mode before I had figured out my stance. Once I got my stance dialed, I started liking my boots stiffer. Red/white/black Track 700's with red BTS springs now. 5'10", 175 pounds. They don't "feel stiff" when I'm riding, and I never feel limited in terms of movement. +2. Properly configured, a 'stiff' interface doesn't feel stiff. It feels transparent. It took me years, and an x-ray that demonstrated that my right/back leg is 11mm shorter than my left/front, to get my stance dialed... Do you ride a bicycle, and if so, did you account for this difference, and to what effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yeah, plenty of limitations but getting a clear series of pictures with sufficient reference points that would enable you to compare the various angles while carving a turn in real life is way beyond my technology. The pictures come as screenshots from a single 1920x1080 video to keep the view/background constant. Boots not worn to try and show what's happening to the joints, hence also the markers drawn on my skin before I shot the video. Oh, and my rear ankle is still quite stiff after I ruptured my Achilles 6 months ago.The point I'm trying to make is that while over a pair of linked carved turns a skier's hips/knees/ankles will both go through the same range of movements this is not so for a snowboarder. My impression is that my rear ankle, in particular, flexes more than the front. The pictures are there to try to make that single point more clearly. So for a skier having both boots with the same flex makes sense. It doesn't necessarily make sense for a snowboarder. If I remember correctly, you're a ski and snowboard instructor, so I'd value what you have to contribute to this discussion. I'm aware that I often look at the same stuff as other people, but frequently come to different conclusions from the "received wisdom". Hi SunS! I'm still pressed for time, but I feel I owe you explanation... First, I admire the effort you've put into this nd other HB related projects! Keep up the good work. The problems I noticed: Hips/knees/feet (non)alignment, but you already addressed that. I feel the aligned stance is more balance, but if face the nose worked for you, well, go for it. A skwal might be your best friend ;) Angles of shins and feet in your relaxed stance have very little to do with the stance in boots. Rear foot at 90deg, if that, to shin, is barely possible in the boot. Font foot is extended, which is not possible in the boots. Next pic, medium flex, is closer to what a neutral stance would be on the board. However, enough toe lift should (IMO) be applied that front foot flexsion is similar to the rear. Last pic, crouching/loded, your rear hill is lifting quite a bit, which men's the joint is over flexed, so not applicable to riding. You mentioned about an injury, so it might have to do wit it... Back to your theory, yes, I believe that my rear boot is set flexier then front, just by the means of tightening the front buckles more. Since I ditched Bts, I've been riding rear in the walk mode and front in either carve or ski mode. When free riding, I leave front in walk too. Mine are Dalbello Crx boots, ski version of the Head Stratos... Ok, later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 A skwal might be your best friend ;) Not quite a skwal, something a bit more substantial. That's another project currently on the go......... More info when I get it onto the snow in July/August. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Modified Head Stratos Pros. Buckled up as if riding. F2 Intec Race - 60 degrees rear with 6cm (oops 6 degrees) heel lift, 65 degrees front with 3 degrees toe lift, no canting. 50cm C-to-C. Photos are screen shots from a single video. Reference points: The Intec mechanism pin on each boot. A mark on the roughly middle of each tibia facing the camera. Position 1 at rest, relaxed as if just sliding along. Position 2 dropped down but balanced over both feet. Rear lower leg moves through 13 degrees, front lower leg through 4 degrees in these photos. After these photos I'm starting to wonder if I need red BTS springs on my front boot, or maybe ditch the BTS altogether and just go back to a variable position lock. Edited February 6, 2014 by SunSurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogokoenig Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I play the piano infrequently; but when I do, I don't go to the gym two weeks before and max out on bicep/tricep curls and the bench press. I tried the piano once but my instructor threw me out after i have tried to sharpen the edges with 88°. I hear what you are saying and agree with most of your statements in your post. But aren't these just very obvious things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neanderthal Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 SunSurfer Thanks for the pics and detailed analysis. I currently ride with a heel lift 6 degrees and a toe lift the same. While I have not done the level of research that you have my IMPRESSION in setting things up is that the range of motion required with the rear foot in greater than the front foot for most people - this would correlate well with the arcs drawn in your last picture. For me the front foot was not as flexed forward, again this works well with the lines drawn above. In the past I had some Raichle flexon pro boots which allowed a shim it the boot to adjust forward flex. This worked well in the rear with no shim in the front. My current setup keeps me centered on the board and I believe optimizes the boots function by having my ankles start at the midpoint of the boots arc of motion or neutral position. The overall arc of motion that is utilized by my body is certainly greater in the rear and smaller at the front but I believe that by starting from the neutral position of the boot I have smoother and more controlled motion. I wonder how the boots would look strapped into your board absent the forces of your body - ie in neutral. You may find that in the rear you utilize only the forward (flexion) 1/2 of your boots arc of motion and the front foot uses only 1/3 of the rearward (extension) arc of the boots motion. I think that springs instead of plastic are the best way to govern this resistance and by being in the center of the boots arc of motion then there is less interference from the plastic flex meeting its limits. Mike T - I wonder what specific changes were made based on your leg length discrepancy? Does this effect any of your other activities and do you wear an orthotic or shim in regular shoes. My understanding is that leg length discrepancy effects pelvic mechanics and spinal alignment. Interestingly enough this is rarely completely corrected and almost never done at once but usually in a progressive fashion. Last - I have been reading the extreemcarving forum and this one for quite some time - can anyone please point me to a comparison between the different hardboot riding styles? I dont understand what is meant by new race style vs EC if the hips are pointed at the toe side instead of at the tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonbordin Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Last - I have been reading the extreemcarving forum and this one for quite some time - can anyone please point me to a comparison between the different hardboot riding styles? I dont understand what is meant by new race style vs EC if the hips are pointed at the toe side instead of at the tip. I'm going to suggest this link http://www.alpinecarving.com/technique.html with the point being there is more than the new race style and EC and camps within each (rotation, what rotates, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) After these photos I'm starting to wonder if I need red BTS springs on my front boot, or maybe ditch the BTS altogether and just go back to a variable position lock. Maybe try red with a positive backstop set for whatever forward lean you prefer. Too much give in the front boot is akin to a ski binding that slides forward slightly when the shovel is engaged. I wonder what specific changes were made based on your leg length discrepancy? Does this effect any of your other activities and do you wear an orthotic or shim in regular shoes. My understanding is that leg length discrepancy effects pelvic mechanics and spinal alignment. Interestingly enough this is rarely completely corrected and almost never done at once but usually in a progressive fashion. Won't presume to speak for Mike T, but accounting for structural leg length on a snowboard (and bicycle) will pay dividends in terms of both performance and reduction of 'unnecessary' muscle activity. I hear what you are saying and agree with most of your statements in your post. But aren't these just very obvious things? What is obvious to you and I may not be obvious to others. While stating the 'obvious' may come across as condescension, omitting relevant detail from technical discussions to avoid offense seems rather silly. While it should be 'obvious' that boot selection/configuration is an important part of alpine sport, few, in both skiing, and snowboarding, take the time to pursue all of the variables to greatest effect. "Big things have small beginnings..." Edited February 7, 2014 by Beckmann AG The obvious, child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Do you ride a bicycle, and if so, did you account for this difference, and to what effect? Mountain bike but not road. I've not accounted for the difference... but I've been thinking I should look into it. I also have yet to invest in one of those adjust-on-the-fly seat posts. My saddle is set a little lower than "normal", I'm a strong uphill / weak downhill rider so I optimize my saddle position for my weakness. (All my rides involve climbs and descents, with not a lot of flat ground...) I know my muscles are compensating for leg length differences, I have learned do just "deal with it". Very flexible in some dimensions, not so much in others. My alpine riding technique has been a frequent subject of discussion this SES... it works for me ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 ^FWIW, accommodation of my shorter left leg relaxed my back, dropped my HR, improved pedal cadence fluidity/rpm, and raised power output. Same effects on the ATB, +balance and handling, and also helped 'float' the hard-tail through the rough while pedaling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neanderthal Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I understand the importance of leg length inequity and am hip to that cause having some training in Osteopathic principles. What interests me is in what specific accommodations are helpful. I would LOVE pics or descriptions ! Here are a few links about this topic - not great but my scanner is broken so I couldnt post the texts I know :( its what I could find on the net from some people I know. http://www.jaoa.org/content/91/1/34.full.pdf http://books.google.com/books?id=kZHk444tr8wC&pg=PA617&lpg=PA617&dq=sacrum+level+heel+lift&source=bl&ots=PnI-64vdN7&sig=_cFljvdseo2f9IggAl306Ue_mtM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VDv0UoqgEsbuyAG3lIHoCg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=sacrum%20level%20heel%20lift&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ZELl5qqEvPkC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=sacrum+level+heel+lift&source=bl&ots=a3aDsL8p9I&sig=C3OWK_M8HvxHH2mA3_hNdVe9oFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VDv0UoqgEsbuyAG3lIHoCg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=sacrum%20level%20heel%20lift&f=false The 1st one pulls a PDF and the others should deep link through google books to some writings from W Kuchera DO In snowboarding I see that a leg length difference would cause pelvic/sacral unleveling and then scoliosis with muscular imbalances. If correction is made with a heel lift then this will cause some pelvic rotation. There are different paradigms for structural evaluation, some with physical exam and others with diagnostic imaging. A functional approach might take both into account. - Would be interested in how these issues were noted Another issue I have noted (seen in friends and experienced myself) is that internal rotation of the hip (usually the rear foot) can gap the sacroiliac joint. Then with a compressive force (hitting a bump or drop-off unexpectedly) can cause a sacral shear which would create a FUNCTIONAL leg length difference. With a bicycle how is accommodation made? Unlevel seat seems uncomfortable ( I can just see Cosmo Kramer commenting on his Osteopath telling him not to sit on his wallet) and discrepancy in crankarms would alter mechanical advantage on each side. I don't have any experience here and mountainbikers seem to ride in more dynamic positions so they dont seem to have as tuned positioning as road riders. Dont want to hijack this thread but I am genuinely interested in responses to the biomechanical issues please PM me or email Neanderthol ( ) mac com While speaking about stances and angles I found this on extreme carving - http://www.extremecarving.com/attachments/stance_Lee_Arjan.xls It was interesting Wonder what would happen if it was tweaked with different leg lengths Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 With a bicycle how is accommodation made? http://beckmannag.com/cycling/on-cycling-alignment That a mountain biker moves about more than a road cyclist doesn't negate the need for tuning. Power output is still power output, and balancing is still balancing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neanderthal Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Beckman AG thanks! wealth of knowledge at your site. I would love to get fit by you if our paths cross 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.