Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Toe/heel lift & cant


McKarver

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, McKarver said:

I can understand the benefit of the front toe/rear heel lift, and the need to experiment to find what works for me. Regarding canting, it seems there's some who use outward cant while others use inward cant....?

Though most of his worldview - including that on snowboarding applications of lunchmeat - is rusticated and ill conceived, Beckmann has a particularly good step-by-step guide to binding configuration, including cant and lift, that has been indispensable to me. Having said that, he will probably now restrict my access to it...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

howdy McKarver

as a man/father figure, i'm going to say this once... get some td3 and stop f'ing around...

throw that piece of shit out and get some td3's and don't look back. grow with the new technology

and keep moving forward. get a custom coiler from bruce before he retires and the .3mm titanal runs out.

don't be left behind... come to WTF2017 we will fill you in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I missed all this butt hurt about opinions of bindings. I can be very literal so Im going to be sure not to leak any pee on other brands. I have been on F2 for 10 years and find the simplicity of the design to MY liking. I run the large heel lift on the back foot and two opposed shims to make a small flat toe lift on the front. Adding a cant is not hard just instal a shim in the direction you desire but it does require adding it to both the toe and heel blocks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also recommend working your way through Erik Beckmann's website. His thoughts on boot setup were enormously helpful to me.

I've attached to this post my own mental framework for thinking about the interplay between rider size, binding angles, stance and stance distances, heel & toe lift, and canting. It's a kind of unified theory that covers alpine snowboarders, skwallers, "softies" style riders, and monoskiers. Also attached is a spreadsheet for working out binding angles for a given riders size and C-to-C stance distance that should need no canting.

I will now put on my asbestos riding suit and wait my learned fellow riders responses. :)

2016-11-26 A framework for hardboot stance and binding setup.pdf

Heel Toe Rise Angle Calculator.pdf

(I'm working on "Butts, Boots and Bindings", looking at the interplay between edge pressure technique, boot flex and what we want our bindings to do.)

Edited by SunSurfer
"Framework" file update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 11/24/2016 at 5:13 PM, SunSurfer said:

I would also recommend working your way through Erik Beckmann's website. His thoughts on boot setup were enormously helpful to me.

I've attached to this post my own mental framework for thinking about the interplay between rider size, binding angles, stance and stance distances, heel & toe lift, and canting. It's a kind of unified theory that covers alpine snowboarders, skwallers, "softies" style riders, and monoskiers. Also attached is a spreadsheet for working out binding angles for a given riders size and C-to-C stance distance that should need no canting.

I will now put on my asbestos riding suit and wait my learned fellow riders responses. 🙂

2016-11-26 A framework for hardboot stance and binding setup.pdf

Heel Toe Rise Angle Calculator.pdf

(I'm working on "Butts, Boots and Bindings", looking at the interplay between edge pressure technique, boot flex and what we want our bindings to do.)

Rewritten, additional diagrams and figures after another year pondering the inter-relationships between stance distance, rider physique, binding angles, cant and lift.

There is a way of putting it all together in a rational way!

2017-Dec-09 A Geometry for Hardboot Stance and Binding Setup.pdf

Dec 31st 2018 - Finally put it together as a YouTube video.

 

Edited by SunSurfer
add YouTube video link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article Alan! Thnx

Wondering what your thoughts would be on why we "extremecarvers" on wider/ softer flex boards ride flat ( no lift, no cant)  and feel its better for our style of riding..? ( Same goes with why plates aren't that good for us..?)

Nils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nils, I've not tried to extreme carve. At 58, I value having intact shoulders and I suspect the learning curve would put them at risk. I'm intrigued by the differing patterns of upper body rotation of the differing styles of riding, and extreme carving is distinctive in this area. The fore and aft weighting of the board in the turn and the compression between turns before the legs extend are also quite distinct for extreme carving.

I suspect that a lot of riding is done by imitation of those who have gone before. If a particular teacher has a particular set up and style, their students are taught to imitate it. Joerg Egli and Pureboarding comes to mind as an example. 

A set-up works if it allows the range of body movement, board bend and edge control that a particular style requires.

My article is an attempt at analysing stance and binding design in order to find a set-up where the rider will have the greatest reserve of body movement, after accommodating their stance, that they can then use to ride.

I wanted to challenge dogma and tradition, and encourage thought and development of the sport. 

Plates increase to torsional rigidity of the mid section of the board, and keep the rider's feet on a flatter surface. Those qualities may well be counter-productive for the body positions required for extreme carving.

Maybe you need to write the next chapter Nils. :-) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, nils said:

Wondering what your thoughts would be on why we "extremecarvers" on wider/ softer flex boards ride flat ( no lift, no cant)  and feel its better for our style of riding..? ( Same goes with why plates aren't that good for us..?)

Nils,

If I may:

The simple answer is that different mechanics are used to reach different outcomes, and the preferable means of executing said mechanics favors one binding configuration over another.

Unless I’m mistaken regarding EC, the board is moved to it’s edge partially by way of rotation, a means of steering/counter-steering as one might generate lean on a motorcycle. In short, the edge/point of contact moves out from under the rider as the tilt increases, meanwhile, ‘push-pull’ comes into play as a means of affecting the bend in the board.

Meanwhile, the style/technique/affect commonly referred to as ‘BOL’, involves a rider achieving edge angle change by way of creating angles internal to the body atop the edge of the board, generally followed by postural compression through the body of the turn.

The postures relative to turn connection are almost 180 deg out of phase from one technique to the other. As such, it’s no surprise to find opposed binding preferences.

As a general rule, the stiffer the boot/binding combination, the more apparent the need for more exacting binding adjustment.

 I’m under the impression that EC binding closure tension tends to be ‘light’, which allows the boot soles to rock across the short axis, thereby complimenting the rotational movements integral to the technique? That kind of ‘play’ in the interface tends to obscure the need (or want) for any sort of canting adjustments.

Meanwhile, many practitioners of the ‘BOL’ mode favor the more rigid intec binding closure.

Further, full leg extension in EC tends to occur when the board is at greatest decamber, whereas in ‘BOL’, the rider tends to have more extension when the board is ‘flattest’. Again, the need for binding tilt/cant is usually most noticeable when standing tallest, and least noticeable when the legs are more flexed. Therefore, it stands to reason that those involved with ‘BOL’ mode would prefer tilt/cant, while practitioners of EC would not feel the same need.

And of course there’s tribal knowledge/tradition, but that’s another thread.

I would not presume to tell you how to ride, or configure your equipment, but I'd suspect that more subtle application of cant and lift may eventually find application for EC.  

Unless, as with top-tier ski racing, adherents to the form all fit within a particular physical/skeletal conformation.

 

As to plates; look again to the timing of loads on the body, and rider posture sustaining that load, respective to each mode of riding. 

With very little suspension travel available during peak loads, it's no surprise that 'BOL'  riders tend to prefer metal boards, sometimes plates on those boards, along with other gooey confections in the interface mix.

Edited by Beckmann AG
more toys in the attic
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, SunSurfer said:

I wanted to challenge dogma and tradition, and encourage thought and development of the sport.

That said, have another go with the following assumptions:

1. 'edge pressure' is a Gryphon.

2. The conventional means of canting in alpine skiing is misguided, and tends to constrain, rather than liberate.

3. Geometry and measurement are the means of returning to where you want to be, rather than determining where you should be.

4. The sport won't advance until better boots are available, and until athletes take the time to educate themselves on mechanical principles, beyond hearsay and common knowledge. 

Edited by Beckmann AG
xtra word deletion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

That said, have another go with the following assumptions:

1. 'edge pressure' is a Gryphon.

2. The conventional means of canting in alpine skiing is misguided, and tends to constrain, rather than liberate.

3. Geometry and measurement are the means of returning to where you want to be, rather than determining where you should be.

4. The sport won't advance until better boots are available, and until athletes either take the time to educate themselves on mechanical principles, beyond hearsay and common knowledge. 

1. Starting to come to grips with the board edge penetrating the snow, the snow pushing against the edge of the base, and the rider balancing all the forces at play, while maintaining the correct relationship between the resultant forces and edge angle that holds the edge in the groove/trench in the snow. 

 Time to read and think.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought on push-pull riding: the center of gravity (CG) height of the rider stays more consistent down the run. You're at your most compressed between turns, and most extended when the whole system is tilted in a deep turn. In contrast, the Bomber style is very tall between turns and drops as you enter each turn. This means a very large CG height change between turning and not turning. The dynamics of absorbing bumps is very different between the two models. 

I've noticed that I set my cant rings on my TD3s at the same angle regardless of binding angle. This roughly lines up to your point in the pdf. 

I love tech stuff, but I always fear that it scares more people away than it gains. How can this be simplified so a potential new hardbooter doesn't think that only mathemagicians can carve? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 12:26 AM, Beckmann AG said:

That's a little like saying the elevated heels on mountaineering boots get you to the summit quicker.

Read this, and everything else you can find on the subject, then rearrange the parts until you can manipulate your board intuitively.

I completely second (or third) following Beckmann's link.  Following his instructions was a huge insight for me.  I found the link in another post a couple seasons ago, I had never been so comfortable on the board before; something always just felt wrong and I could never figure out how to get to a neutral comfortable stance.  Once my stance was comfy it provided an instantaneous boost in my performance.  Thank you Beckmann for making that available.

I also second buying a second lift kit for the F2.  They really only seem to supply enough for one foot in my opinion  The F2s are a bit of a PITA to change, but then I didn't find the bombers to be any easier; Cateks were great for easy changes.  I was never able to change setting without completely disassembling the bombers, maybe because my small feet pull the bail blocks in conflict with the rest of the screws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Corey said:

I love tech stuff, but I always fear that it scares more people away than it gains. How can this be simplified so a potential new hardbooter doesn't think that only mathemagicians can carve? 

Over many years in the ski industry, I've worked with quite the cross section of humanity. Some were mathematicians, some were carpenter's wives, but the latter surely outnumbered the former.

People are often smarter than they let on. Not always, mind you, but I've seldom had any difficulty describing cause and effect, once the channels of communication were properly synched.

In short, if one has the capacity to understand the workings of fire, one can handle the 'hows' and 'whys' of snowboarding. More often than not, its the misinformation represented as 'fact' that gets in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10.12.2017 at 4:22 AM, Beckmann AG said:

As a general rule, the stiffer the boot/binding combination, the more apparent the need for more exacting binding adjustment.

 I’m under the impression that EC binding closure tension tends to be ‘light’, which allows the boot soles to rock across the short axis, thereby complimenting the rotational movements integral to the technique? That kind of ‘play’ in the interface tends to obscure the need (or want) for any sort of canting adjustments.

I have never ridden with Patrice (of Swoard), so take this with a grain of salt. People who have, however, tell me that he rides with his bails set so loosely that he can literally close them with a single finger. You are probably on to something ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nils,
reflecting more on your question about the extreme carvers using "flat" bindings, i.e. no cant and no lift.

There is no obvious reason why the geometry described in my article should not apply to extreme carvers.

1/ All types of board riders (inc. skwal riders & monoskiers) constrain the position of their feet, by fixing them in place on the one riding surface.

2/ Once a position has been established where the boot soles are naturally flat (feet side by side, at the zero cant distance), any movement away from that position requires some limb movement.

3/ The amount of limb movement can be minimised by appropriate lift and canting, leaving the maximum reserve of joint motion for the rider to use in controlling their board. Not using lift and/or canting requires extra joint movement, and may introduce unnatural postures and significant muscle tension in the baseline riding position.

4/ Riders can increase the range of motion they have available by a) using more flexible boots or softer springs in the boot flex control system b) using more flexible bindings e.g bail vs. Intec, Bomber Sidewinder vs. standard, looser or firmer adjustment of the binding itself.

5/ My article describes a relatively simple way of predicting approximately what lift and cant would be appropriate for any snow "board" stance and riding style.

Like Erik Beckmann above "I'd suspect that more subtle application of cant and lift may eventually find application for EC."

Alan McKenzie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Corey said:

I love tech stuff, but I always fear that it scares more people away than it gains. How can this be simplified so a potential new hardbooter doesn't think that only mathemagicians can carve? 

One of the observations that set me on this path was the number of riders on Bomber who confess to riding bindings set at around 60 degrees with lift but no cant. I'm in that crowd.

If you look at the binding angle vs. secant (binding angle) curve at binding angles around 55-60 degrees the reasonable stance widths for an alpine snowboarder are all pretty close to the line suggesting minimal or no cant required. 

So to simply set up a complete alpine newbie's boots, bindings and board, I'd suggest.

Pick bail bindings, unless it an old codger like me, who's too stiff to easily engage the toe bail. It makes the canting less critical.
1/ Fit boot and adjust boot cuff canting. Measure zero cant distance, but just tuck it away in the memory for now.
2/ Likely stance widths for current use, for riders of normal lower limb joint mobility, are going to be around 0.52 to 0.58 of the distance from top greater trochanter to foot sole in socks. 
(I've just measured mine with my boots on and its 9cm more than in socks!) I currently ride 54cm stance / 95cm gt. troch to floor in socks = 0.57. I used to comfortably ride 50cm  (0.53) with the same binding angles and no cant.
3/ Set the bindings with lift only at 60 degrees.  6 degrees lift rear, could be 3 or 6 in front (6 if UPZs). Split the splay angle around 60 if you want it. Stance should be centred on the designed inserts.
4/ Go ride!

A lot of people are clearly able to happily carve with roughly this setup. The geometry predicts is shouldn't be too far off a reasonable position for function and comfort. Once the newbie is hooked, there'll be plenty of time to obsess over the finer details! Isn't that what we do here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

secant... trochanter... 60 degrees...

As has been discussed many times before, the best angle to start at is that which places your toes and heels closest to the edge without overhang, with the front foot slightly higher. 

A total noob won't be laying out extreme carves, so they can tolerate a little overhang.  This will result in angles dictated by board width and boot size.  If this results in greater than 60 degrees for a new carver, a wider board would be much better. 

As for stance width, about shoulder width is good.  Some toe lift on the front foot, heel lift on the back foot.  Why?  See Vitruvian Man.  3 degrees seems like a good middle-of-the-road place to start.  Definitely more toe lift on the front foot for UPZ boots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thnx guys for your very wise and smart inputs! 

I agree with the fact that the way the load / distribution / way we ride explains most of the differences  did not thought much of it previously.

Early in the late 90's when Patrice and Jacques refined their EC technique before sharing it to us, they started from the available positions aka heavy front leg lift, and back foot canting for slowly, after many experimentation, decreasing the need for it as the technique got better and to what it eventually became. I also started EC with my old settings, feeling way better in the flat parts but as soon as the board bended, it felt not as comfy anymore and the backsides kept skidding...Its only when I got totally flat that I started to use better rotation and the push/pull that I began to enjoy and make it easier.. Width of the boards also reduced the need for lift/cant by having less painful angles ( 53-47 for me)

As you say Alan, the position we have beeing totally flat is awkward for stand up positionand not totally ergonomic, it can be seen in the movies between the turns sometimes in the pull section of the turn even ( but the bent legs reduce the incomfort)..It is on flat slopes when you just cruise from A to B that you feel the need for lift and canting! Fortunately, the relative softness of the EC boards make them easy to twist and bend and makes it  bearable...its a trade in between efficiency in the EC turns and comfort the rest of the time we make.

Off topic: tightenting of bails : We had many exchanges with Fin during the TD1-TD2 years, and basically Jacques did not like them due to too much lateral rigidity and this is why the bindings J and P rode then had less tightness...The TD3 SW solved that issue! Also the reduced feet angles permitted by our wider board ( 22-23.5 for 168 and 175 models) induced big stress in the back bails that we kept breaking  ( even the Ti models that have no flexibility). Patrice now rides the bindings he developped for freecarving/EC  that has some lateral play and locks the bindings the proper way ( tight).

Nils

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, nils said:

The TD3 SW solved that issue! Patrice now rides the bindings he developped for freecarving/EC  that has some lateral play.

Given that effective use of cant/lift encourages inversion/eversion at the ankle joint despite a rigid boot shell, one could move the plane of articulation to the roll axis of the ankle joint, rather than leaving it at or below the boot sole.

In theory, that should make for a 'better' riding experience, regardless of preferred 'technique', assuming that one of the goals is intuitive/joyous movement over snow.

Granted, theory and practice don't always align, but it's not easy coming up with athletic situations where learned movements are preferable to intuitive movements, the latter generally being more accurate and easier to deploy.

Similarly, it often appears that the board is 'wavering' in the cut during an EC turn. This suggests inadvertent twisting on the long axis, something that can be reduced with careful interface tuning.

Edited by Beckmann AG
installed Italians
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

See Vitruvian Man.

Vitruvian man advocates arm flapping and inward cant at the rear foot. Also nudity.

Outside of Naked Ski Day at Crested Butte, those three are hardly canon. 

On December 10, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Corey said:

How can this be simplified

People like pictures, so the obvious answer is pictograms/petroglyphs.

Vitruvian man for BOL

Leonardo+da+Vinci+-+Vitruvian+Man.jpg

Heiroglyphs for EC

070315-222-1280.jpg

And if one extends the metaphor, the unified answer can be found here.

prometheusO_screencap3.jpg

 

Edited by Beckmann AG
rock paper scissors
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...