Jump to content

Toe/heel lift & cant


McKarver
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

1/ 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. 

2/ 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.

1/ Jack, you're assuming the only way to carve a snowboard is by the heel and toe method of levering the board angle. Please explain to the rider below why what he's doing is so difficult, if not impossible. The board waist is 25cm, the bindings are at around 60 degrees, and the heels and toes are nowhere near the edge!

The other outcome of the old wisdom is to immediately add in the complexity of varying canting requirements as the binding angles change with board width. Corey asked for simplicity.

2/ Shoulder width? Just how do we measure that? I just stood in a doorway, closed the door till the door and the frame butted up against the outside of my shoulders. Stepped away and measured the gap. 49cm, close to where I started out at 50cm in 2008, 10% roughly from where I ride now at 54cm. You have advocated longer stance widths for stability in these forums.
Unfortunately, not all human beings were made in the same mould / mold, nor are we all as photogenic and well proportioned as Leonardo's model. In the shoulder department, some of us look like Michael Phelps, some like Mo Farah.

The triangle we balance on, with our feet at corners, and our centre of mass at the apex, is clearly aligned with the length of our legs and centre of hip movement.
If I rode doing a handstand, with my forearms, wrists & hands in the boots, shoulder width would be (only a little) more appropriate. I'd argue that arm length would then be a better measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

1/ Jack, you're assuming the only way to carve a snowboard is by the heel and toe method of levering the board angle. Please explain to the rider below why what he's doing is so difficult, if not impossible. The board waist is 25cm, the bindings are at around 60 degrees, and the heels and toes are nowhere near the edge!

I don't think Jack ever said it was impossible.  The guy in that video is clearly an experienced rider, and I'd wager that particular board isn't his regular ride, or alternately he's one of those guys who ride the same angles no matter the board.

My opinion is that your suggested angles of 60 degrees are too steep for the newbie carver, if he is already a soft boot rider.  Something more moderate would be more appropriate.  If you're going to mount hard boots on a standard width board like in the video, I think 40 or 45 degrees would be a good starting point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2017 at 1:51 PM, SunSurfer said:

1/ Jack, you're assuming the only way to carve a snowboard is by the heel and toe method of levering the board angle.

I am?  Where?

Quote

Please explain to the rider below why what he's doing is so difficult, if not impossible. The board waist is 25cm, the bindings are at around 60 degrees, and the heels and toes are nowhere near the edge!

Two simple facts: you're giving up leverage by setting up your bindings that way, and, leverage is a good thing.  A beginner coming from softboots will be more comfortable with the lowest possible stance angles.  They're still likely going to be north of 45 degrees, probably around 50 or 55, but that's still better than blindly telling a newbie to use 60 degrees no matter what.

Quote

The other outcome of the old wisdom is to immediately add in the complexity of varying canting requirements as the binding angles change with board width.

No, the "old wisdom" is to start with toe and heel lift, go ride, and experiment from there.  This works for a variety of stance angles.

Quote

Corey asked for simplicity.

Secant and decimal multipliers and trochanter are simple for the general audience?

Quote

2/ Shoulder width? Just how do we measure that?

However you want.  I recommend a tape measure.  And I said about shoulder width. 

Quote

Unfortunately, not all human beings were made in the same mould

So why should they all start with the same 60 degree binding angles?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

Good on you for positing a theory, working your way through it, and sharing the results with those who may or may not care to think about such things.

Some of the following relate to this thread directly, and to your updated article in abstraction.

On December 11, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SunSurfer said:

The other outcome of the old wisdom is to immediately add in the complexity of varying canting requirements as the binding angles change with board width. Corey asked for simplicity.

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong,"

 

>Simple is a matter of perspective, process, and expected outcome.

Should it be simple for you, the mechanic?

Or should the application of boot-binding adjustment simplify the experience for the end user?

In both skiing and snowboarding, the tendency in equipment interface manipulation is to simplify the application for the tech, obfuscate the mechanics, complicate the outcome, and outsource responsibility to the end user for any failure that occurs along the way.

“The good athlete can adapt”, and so forth. A comforting thought, but does little to resolve the many overlapping variables presenting significant obstacles to the exhilarating day on snow.

>Geometry may be part of effective equipment configuration, but is not the solution.

 E.g., It’s tempting to derive stance width early on, but if you do, you wind up using cant, lift, and angle to find comfort at the chosen width, rather than finding a width that compliments the foundation supplied by the proper use of cant, lift etc, 

On December 11, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Neil Gendzwill said:

My opinion is that your suggested angles of 60 degrees are too steep for the newbie carver, if he is already a soft boot rider.  Something more moderate would be more appropriate.  If you're going to mount hard boots on a standard width board like in the video, I think 40 or 45 degrees would be a good starting point. 

It might seem wise to err ‘low’ on stance angle, in order to create the illusion of comfort and an easy transition from softboots. However; clumsy, unfamiliar edging movements are then magnified by the boot on it’s stronger axis. Hence, difficulty in finding stability, so the greater part of the learning experience is devoted to burning calories by way of reactive muscle tension.

Further, there’s no practical point in teaching a novice to pivot or ‘swing’ an alpine board,  so why facilitate the carryover of that habit with lower binding angles if it serves little purpose?

On December 11, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SunSurfer said:

The board waist is 25cm, the bindings are at around 60 degrees, and the heels and toes are nowhere near the edge!

 

>Regarding ‘underhang’ at steeper angles on wider boards, it’s not so much that you ‘lose leverage’,  it’s that the board  gains the mechanical advantage over the boot/binding system, and that translates into the rider making overly large movements in order to create/alter/maintain a particular relationship between the tilt of the board and the working surface.

Outsized movements create timing errors, and timing errors limit rider efficacy.

>The novice doesn’t need range of motion. The novice needs a neutral relationship with the board, and a similar relationship between the board and the snow once in motion.

Otherwise, they will be spending significant time trying to counter various unintentional inputs that threaten stability, and constraining the bounds of experience. This, in place of learning/reinforcing proactive movements that gradually expand the operating parameters.

Quoted from your text:

A Tweak of Outward Canting

Some ski racers, having achieved the flat boot sole & knee midpoint vertically over the boot centre position, then add a little outward cant to make themselves slightly bow legged. The theory is that as the outside ski leg tenses, and the muscles pull the leg straight, then the outside ski is automatically put onto its’ inside edge, helping to initiate the carve. Other top racers are absolutely happy with neutral cuff cant relative to their calf and flat ski bases. Skiers are not snowboarders. Skiers apply edge pressure out of the sides of their boots. Their legs, and skis, work independently and the outside ski does the majority of the edging work in a carved turn.

However plausible, the bulk of the previous paragraph simply isn’t ‘true’. Which is to say, if you follow each line of reasoning to a definitive end, you’ll find them limiting, or based on misunderstanding of mechanical principles, structural anatomy, or both.

E.g., It should be apparent that the upper echelon of racers are quite effective on both feet simultaneously. To the extent that they are, in effect, riding one platform.

 

One of the dominant talking points in ski education deals with focusing pressure to the outside ski, by way of the inside edge. Such thinking largely ignores the time differential created while moving from outside ski to outside ski by way of their respective inside edges. So, while this may work in the recreational setting, where one is trying to mold a terminal intermediate skier into something more pleasing to the collective eye, it’s a dead end if one wishes to ski at a higher level.

I can assure you, as well, that a ski is nearly identical in function to an alpine snowboard, and vice versa. And that truly proficient skiers apply pressure to the body of the ski through the sole of the foot, (once it has been brought to edge by subtle inversion and eversion), not through the sides of the boots.  The sides of the boots serve to maintain an effective relationship between the base of the ski, and the lower extremities, in much the same way as the highback on a softboot binding prevents the board from opening the ankle joint on a heelside turn.

While it is certainly possible to tilt one’s board by way of the boot cuffs, this is not ideal, as use of the legs in that capacity precludes, or at least compromises their higher value/function as a suspension system. This holds true for skiing and snowboarding.

 Further, the greater value of canting is a means of restoring function to a joint that has been otherwise compromised, not as a means of adding or subtracting ‘edge’, or accounting for a stylishly wide, but functionally deficient snowboard stance.

NB, 

None of the above is a criticism of your efforts, rather, presented as food for thought to advance your quest for understanding.

Edited by Beckmann AG
oblate spheroid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TrenchGear 3D app

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/trenchgear3d/id898156375?mt=8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.AlpineCarving.TG3D&hl=en

and the TD2 Tweak-o-Matic on the Carvers Almanac

http://www.alpinecarving.com/tmtd2/

are tools to help riders understand how the changing the relationships between binding base disk, cant disk and binding plate alter cant and lift. 

 

I find the diagrams help me think about some of the other, non-intuitive & non-linear,  changes that occur when a rider changes in physique, stance distance or binding angle. The diagrams are a tool for me. They seem to apply to a wide range of riding styles.

A rider's chosen stance is the sum of its' parts. Geometry is only a part.

In search of Corey's simplicity I had, indeed, chosen the mechanic's simplest stance (and also my own stance in the video) from among the vast array of starting points. The choice Jack Michaud made is an alternative starting point on the search for carving turn Nirvana. 

__________________________________

5 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

I can assure you, as well, that a ski is nearly identical in function to an alpine snowboard, and vice versa. And that truly proficient skiers apply pressure to the body of the ski through the sole of the foot, (once it has been brought to edge by subtle inversion and eversion), not through the sides of the boots.  The sides of the boots serve to maintain an effective relationship between the base of the ski, and the lower extremities, in much the same way as the highback on a softboot binding prevents the board from opening the ankle joint on a heelside turn.

When I write about "riding out of the sides of my boots" I'm trying to find words to describe the sensation I experience when I carve, and to try to distinguish it from the style of riding where my instructor has asked me to try to ride more across the board, emphasising pressure on the heels and toes.

What you've written in that paragraph comes closer to the kinaesthetic experience I have in carving a turn. I feel, and balance against the force on the edge through my feet, especially the forefoot of both feet. But I am also aware of the pressure of the boot cuffs on the sides of my calves, especially the boot on the outside of the turn. My knees and ankles are shock absorbing and also helping to hold the fore/aft balance to keep my centre of mass from getting too far forward or back, keeping it in the "sweet spot".

 I came to alpine snowboarding from skiing, and when I very occasionally go back I can now find the same sensations on my skis, and then they carve!

Thanks for the signposts on my explorations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Regarding ‘underhang’ at steeper angles on wider boards, it’s not so much that you ‘lose leverage’,  it’s that the board  gains the mechanical advantage over the boot/binding system

Which is another way of saying, the rider loses leverage. :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jack Michaud said:

Which is another way of saying, the rider loses leverage. :-P

Not really. The rider (presumably the same entity prior to binding angle change) hasn't lost leverage , just the ability to exert that leverage in the same time frame, and to the same effect, on account of a weak connection.

In other words, the rider maintains leverage, but loses options with respect to time and distance.

It's a subtle, but important difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beckmann AG said:

Not really. The rider (presumably the same entity prior to binding angle change) hasn't lost leverage , just the ability to exert that leverage in the same time frame, and to the same effect, on account of a weak connection.

In other words, the rider maintains leverage, but loses options with respect to time and distance.

It's a subtle, but important difference.

Several posts ago this thread entered the pedantic zone, which means hopefully nobody is paying attention other than those posting.  That said, I think you're way over-thinking this.

I know you know all this but this is my thinking: Snowboarders, including alpine snowboarders, can use their feet, ankles, and calf muscles to tilt the board, in addition to whatever else.  That's a lever we have at our disposal.  If you were to set your bindings up at 90 degrees (in line with the long axis of the board) you would no longer have that lever at all.  Therefore, when you set your bindings up with underhang, you are reducing your leverage over the board.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it this way:

Some of the steering inputs on your motorcycle originate at the grips. If I introduce a set of limited deflection rubber knuckles to your bars, inboard of the grips, one on each side,  you will need to use larger inputs at the grips to impart the same rotational effect to the steering axis, on account of deflection.

You will still have control over the system, but your options will be limited, and your riding activities constrained.

The lever arm hasn't changed, you haven't changed physically, but your behaviour will change, as will your path down the track.

 

In your example (assuming the board width remains constant), the lever still exists, but is more effective on one axis, and less effective on the other.

On account of the binding, and it's structural limitations.

If the size, shape, origin and conclusion of a turn are heavily dependent on the rider's ability to tilt the board with accuracy, it stands to reason that one should 'tune' the efficacy of their lever to that end.

That's attention to detail, not pedantry.

 

Passengers need not concern themselves with aeronautics.  Pilots, however, should be well-versed.

 

Edited by Beckmann AG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analog to your motorcycle deflection thingamabob is the boot, not the distance from the binding to the edge of the board. That is pretty much pure mechanical leverage right there. The squishy bits in the system (your leg/ankle and the boot) haven't changed as you make the board wider at a given binding angle, only the mechanical leverage they are operating against. 

Edited by Neil Gendzwill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

In your example, the lever still exists, but is more effective on one axis, and less effective on the other.

That's what I'm saying, it becomes less effective the more underhang you have.

Suffice to say, telling all beginners to set their bindings to 60 degrees is not good  advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

That's what I'm saying, it becomes less effective the more underhang you have.

Suffice to say, telling all beginners to set their bindings to 60 degrees is not good  advice.

I added a line to the previous post to clarify.

I'm not disagreeing on the negative aspects of underhang. However, 60 degrees in and of itself isn't really a limiting factor for the novice, so long as the other variables have been tended to.  Given the option of 60 or 40, each without over/underhang, I'll err on the side of 60 for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

The analog to your motorcycle deflection thingamabob is the boot, not the distance from the binding to the edge of the board.

No, Neil, it's an 'illustrative example' to describe the weakness of the boot/binding interface as mentioned in the quote below.  The 'analog', given the focus on levers and rotation, would be mounting the handlebars to a rubber torsion block atop the triple clamp, and riding the motorcycle through a semi-solid.

 

23 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

it’s that the board  gains the mechanical advantage over the boot/binding system, and that translates into the rider making overly large movements in order to create/alter/maintain a particular relationship between the tilt of the board and the working surface.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

When I write about "riding out of the sides of my boots" I'm trying to find words to describe the sensation I experience when I carve, and to try to distinguish it from the style of riding where my instructor has asked me to try to ride more across the board, emphasising pressure on the heels and toes.

I get that, and it's a reasonable way to look at it. However, there has always been a tendency to influence edge/snow contact in both skiing and snowboarding by way of knee and/or shin/tibia movement, to the eventual detriment of the athlete. Contact in those areas are a useful reference point for the actions of the board, but it would be a mistake to focus on them as a 'means of activation', so to speak, particularly if you're trying to create a comprehensive 'how to'.

What you've written in that paragraph comes closer to the kinaesthetic experience I have in carving a turn. I feel, and balance against the force on the edge through my feet, especially the forefoot of both feet. But I am also aware of the pressure of the boot cuffs on the sides of my calves, especially the boot on the outside of the turn. 

So then ask yourself why the forefeet take most of the load, whether or not that represents the most ideal and sustainable 'structural' relationship, and then go from there.  FWIW, when my boots are 'right', I don't notice a pressure differential between front and rear cuffs on a given turn. If I did, it would signify that each end of the board was not equally contributing to the turn.

And you're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
On 11/24/2016 at 5:13 AM, 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 595.84 kB · 48 downloads

Heel Toe Rise Angle Calculator.pdf 36.18 kB · 47 downloads

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

Can you repost the links mate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slapos said:

Can you repost the links mate ?

@slapos

http://beckmannag.com/hardboot-snowboarding

Click on  Hardboot Snowboarding on the menu to find the sections. Erik has a distinctive way of expressing himself, a unique "voice". Take your time to reflect on what he's saying.

Edited by SunSurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

@slapos

http://beckmannag.com/hardboot-snowboarding

Click on  Hardboot Snowboarding on the menu to find the sections. Erik has a distinctive way of expressing himself, a unique "voice". Take your time to reflect on what he's saying.

sorry maybe that wasnt what I was looking for.

Someone posted a while ago a angle/cant calculator ....

damn what an abyss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@slapos If you're looking for a binding & cant calculator for Bomber bindings search for

TrenchGear3D

in the Google Play store.

The app shows the results of combinations of binding angles and cant disc angles.

The old Tweakomatic page at the Carvers Almanac - Binding Setup section seems to have stopped working.

 

Edited by SunSurfer
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...