UPZ boot centering marks?

[rjnakata]

1 hour ago, Beckmann AG said:

Consider that some feet have proportionally longer arches, and some have proportionally longer toes. In each case, centering the boot shell geometrically will result in sub-optimal signal routing.

Roger that, so assuming "average" physiology what would be a good starting point for foot to board relationship?   

Should it be based on an alignment to adjacent edges or other?

Edited February 15, 2020 by rjnakata
correct a word choice

[Corey]

16 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Some riders reach a certain point of accomplishment, find bliss, and desire no further exploration.

Others realize that there is always more over the horizon. The latter class can take a linear measure, extrapolate effect based on past experience and theory, and make the informed decision to find a boot/binding configuration better suited to their geometric needs and athletic goals.

While I don't disagree, isn't that pure academia for the sake of academia if one isn't replacing their equipment? 

[lonbordin]

19 hours ago, Corey said:

While I don't disagree, isn't that pure academia for the sake of academia if one isn't replacing their equipment? 

So you don't ride different boards, different bindings, different styles, different terrains?

[Corey]

12 minutes ago, lonbordin said:

So you don't ride different boards, different bindings, different styles, different terrains?

Most certainly. And I try to get my toes near the toe edge and my heels near the heel edge, at the lowest angles possible without overhang. No math involved unless I'm making new parts, which I suspect rjnakata is not doing. 

I'm all for complicating things when necessary (see my post history!), but I suspect that new bindings aren't being constructed after reading this thread.

How will rjnakata's next steps change if the measurent is 1cm vs 1.5 cm vs 0.5cm? If there's no difference in the next steps dependent on that number, it's wasted effort.

Of course, it can be fun if you're into that kind of thing, rather like posting on internet forums.

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/16/2020 at 1:44 AM, Corey said:

isn't that pure academia for the sake of academia if one isn't replacing their equipment? 

How did you arrive at that statement?  

'Pure academia for the sake of academia' suggests the discussion of esoteric information out of reach of the common man.

When it comes to game improvement, boot/binding configuration is the lowest of the hanging fruit. 

Can you even imagine purchasing decisions based on causal links, rather than blind hope, hyperbole and peer pressure?

On 2/16/2020 at 9:49 PM, Corey said:

No math involved unless I'm making new parts, which I suspect rjnakata is not doing. 

I'm all for complicating things when necessary (see my post history!), but I suspect that new bindings aren't being constructed after reading this thread.

How will rjnakata's next steps change if the measurent is 1cm vs 1.5 cm vs 0.5cm? If there's no difference in the next steps dependent on that number, it's wasted effort.

Do you know with certainty that RJ isn't capable of, interested in, or already on the path to equipment alteration?

Is your skepticism indicative of your research into efficacy, or reflective of your grasp of the principles involved?

New products hit the market when a need is realized. That involves questions and informed discussion.

Given the complaints related to UPZ fitment to certain bindings, it seems a greater understanding of the problem and it's effects might lead to more equipment choices. 

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:06 AM, rjnakata said:

Roger that, so assuming "average" physiology what would be a good starting point for foot to board relationship?   

Should it be based on an alignment to adjacent edges or other?

Start with geometry, using the contact point of your heel and that of the first met head of your lead foot as end points. 

Then factor in both the need to balance leverage ratios with respect to the long board axis, and the part where, in a 'centered' posture more pressure may be expressed through the heel than ball of foot

Then run through some controlled riding scenarios to see if, in your case, offset is an actual concern.

E.G., I tend to do a lot of initial testing using only the front binding.

You may find, that for your particular physicality, the exaggerated internal ramp of the UPZ demands a 'illogical' offset in order for the board to handle with neutrality.

Much of this stuff is iterative, in that a change in binding configuration can allow a better understanding of athletic movement, which then prompts a smaller change in binding configuration, and so on. It's a tightening spiral with a practical endpoint.

If you see improvement, but run out of adjustment range before running out of curiosity, get in touch. 

[Corey]

@Beckmann AG

Back to this: 

On 2/16/2020 at 8:49 PM, Corey said:

How will rjnakata's next steps change if the measurent is 1cm vs 1.5 cm vs 0.5cm? If there's no difference in the next steps dependent on that number, it's wasted effort.

 

[Corey]

3 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

How did you arrive at that statement?

We're both making assumptions as to the original poster's next steps.  I made the assumption that he already has boots and bindings and is not looking to re-engineer one or the other.  If that's not the case, then measure away!  

[rjnakata]

5 hours ago, Corey said:

We're both making assumptions as to the original poster's next steps.  I made the assumption that he already has boots and bindings and is not looking to re-engineer one or the other.  If that's not the case, then measure away!  

Ok, I'm not manufacturing any new boots/bindings but I just posted this topic on something I've been working on: TD3 SI mod for increased forward bias.  I'd love your feedback.

I am in agreement that the boot center location is not key, but it did prompt me on to greater realization that something was off with my setup that I couldn't solve.  It was/is part of my thinking process I suppose.  I'm looking forward to getting some (Alpine) crowd sourced feedback. 

[Beckmann AG]

So...Back to this:

14 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Is your skepticism indicative of your research into efficacy, or reflective of your grasp of the principles involved?

 

[Corey]

6 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Is your skepticism indicative of your research into efficacy, or reflective of your grasp of the principles involved?

First, that's really condescending. Don't insult people if you want to foster good communication and debate. 

Second, my direction of embracing simplicity over complexity is due to seeing some very intelligent people getting mired in pedantic details that they don't have a method or desire to change. The human body is amazingly adaptive given some time to adapt to the motion pattern. See front squats vs. high bar squats vs. low bar squats for one example. 

Kudos to rjnakata for a creative solution! 

[Beckmann AG]

23 hours ago, Corey said:

First, that's really condescending. Don't insult people if you want to foster good communication and debate. 

 

Earlier in this thread you questioned the discussion and implementation of offset tuning as ‘academia’, having little practical value.

That’s dismissive of RJ’s quest for knowledge and my encouragement of his pursuit, and does nothing to further the conversation.

Why should you feel insulted when asked to justify your position?

23 hours ago, Corey said:

Second, my direction of embracing simplicity over complexity is due to seeing some very intelligent people getting mired in pedantic details that they don't have a method or desire to change. The human body is amazingly adaptive given some time to adapt to the motion pattern. See front squats vs. high bar squats vs. low bar squats for one example. 

You’re correct in that the human body is adaptable.

In some contexts, (such as lifting), adaptation may be logical.

Adaptation in motion, particularly on a dynamic platform, consumes both muscle and time, both of which could be better used for riding, rather than accommodating equipment maladjustment.

Adaptation in thought process requires an awareness and acceptance that there's usually more going on than 'what we know'. 

An enduring problem in alpinesport is the largely incomplete understanding of how equipment interferes with athletic movement. Once the obstacles are removed, the actions required to ride well are incredibly simple, in stark contrast to most of what is viewed as ‘proper’ technique, that often being an ad hoc series of work-arounds.

Doesn’t matter how intelligent the athlete or coach; if they can’t see the entire picture, they might as well be looking at an empty frame.

I asked a year or two ago if you’d ever executed the alignment work on your race car; a question that never got answered.

I asked, because there are a few similarities between the ‘alignment’ of a rider to their board, and the alignment of the wheels to the chassis.

If you understand the benefit of tenths of a degree in one context, odds are that knowledge will transfer to another.

If you’ve not ‘done the research’, that’s fine, but speaking as though you have isn’t helping the cause, nor is disparaging the efforts of those who pursue additional learning.

You’re in a notable position to influence rider development. As such, it’s reasonable to suggest you to speak from a position of practical certainty, rather than opinion/consensus/casual observation.

[Corey]

4 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

That’s dismissive of RJ’s quest for knowledge and my encouragement of his pursuit, and does nothing to further the conversation.

A fair point.  You're correct in that I was too dismissive.  

I don't disagree that fine adjustments can benefit riders of all levels.  My concern is that we (big WE, as technical-minded alpine snowboarders that regularly post on the internet) can tend to over-emphasize the importance of fine adjustments.  We obviously need to get close so that the rider isn't uncomfortable or grossly out of position, but I feel that the 80:20 rule is in full effect.  With 20% of the work, we can get to 80% of what a rider needs.  Then, we can use that other 80% of our effort to embrace having fun, developing the basics, etc.  Then, that self-learning journey can lead to a further refinement if they desire.  

Why do I suggest this?  The vast majority of shockingly-good riders I encounter are not spending hours fine-tuning their toe-heel-board relationships, or cants, or other micro-adjustments.  Consider how popular F2 bindings are, with quite coarse adjustment steps.  Most riders slap bindings on the board, ride, and make some rather coarse adjustments, and then leave it.  Could they gain a bit more from spending a lot more time?  Very possibly.  But they don't seem to care as the juice isn't worth the squeeze in their opinion.  

So, I don't mean to say that you shouldn't obsess over fine adjustments, but rather than it's not a requirement to alpine snowboarding.  

4 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

I asked a year or two ago if you’d ever executed the alignment work on your race car; a question that never got answered.

I asked, because there are a few similarities between the ‘alignment’ of a rider to their board, and the alignment of the wheels to the chassis.

If you understand the benefit of tenths of a degree in one context, odds are that knowledge will transfer to another.

Sorry I had started a response to that and then promptly forgot about it.  I understand where you are going, but the alignment of a car is more analogous to the design of the snowboard, i.e. the sidecut profile, taper, camber, camber/decamber.  The boot/binding interface is more analogous to the driver's seat/pedals/steering wheel.  In that case, it's amazing how much variety a driver can handle without any adjustment period; from the feet-above-hips driving position of F1 drivers to upright economy cars.  I experience this regularly in driving schools, where sometimes I'll hop out of a brand new Corvette and into a Suzuki Aerio, or vice-versa.  It's humorous how much of the driving experience is similar even though there are few outward similarities and the human-machine interface is quite different, not to mention the vehicle performance. 

My thought: As long as you have full range of motion of your controls (car, snowboard, plane, whatever), you can make it work.  You can fine tune if you wish from there.  If you don't have a full range of motion, it's in your best interests to change things until you do.  I have zero data to back that up, but rather have noticed this trend across every sport/activity I've participated in.  

I have no issue with people spending as much of their time as they want to pursue perfection (however they interpret perfection), but perfection can be an endless pursuit when you could instead be having fun sliding on snow for recreation.  

[pow4ever]

Love the discussion!  Huge fan of Pareto. 

For work:  i have to be precise, measure many time before we can even start thinking of writing up proposal of cutting intent.
For snowboarding:  shooting for ball park is good enough(as I want to maximize riding time). 
I would like to be precise/dialed in.  Gearhead is gonna be pedantic
However I can't tell the difference between very fine micro adjustment.  I wish I can but I just can't.

I ping pong between the 2 mind sets.  Depends on where i am on the path of carve journey.
When i first starting:  I don't know what "good" is; so it's time wasted trying to dial in.  the dark age.... but i read and try; that was not fun...
As i get further along:  some tweak is good but not dramatic difference/revelation.  technique trump tweaking (to a degree) for me.
I can compensate setup deficiency with technique (extra movement):  not ideal

Naturally talented rider is going to be able to ride no matter what.
Me the talentless advance by brute force and over time i find that "doing less" is more appealing to me(less thing can go wrong); hence tweaking/optimized setup become appealing to me.  I don't obsess over it but recognized the importance of it.
Not going to tweak for a particular condition/day/trail i am way too lazy to do that...  but one day i would like to be able to tell the trade-off between various tweak and come to a good comprise and stick with it.

Until that day:  rinse and repeat; sometime i want to be a tinker bell; sometime i want be a carving brute

[Beckmann AG]

9 hours ago, Corey said:

We obviously need to get close so that the rider isn't uncomfortable or grossly out of position, but I feel that the 80:20 rule is in full effect.  With 20% of the work, we can get to 80% of what a rider needs.  Then, we can use that other 80% of our effort to embrace having fun, developing the basics, etc.  Then, that self-learning journey can lead to a further refinement if they desire.  

Understandable. However, the 80/20 rule as applied to alpine skiing and snowboarding runs in reverse, whereby the first 80% change (removal of 80% equipment related obstacles) allows the athlete to discover/uncover the first 20% of their potential. That 20% gain opens the door for further athletic insight, which spurs the iterative process toward the 80% gain.

One thing to remember is that a gliding board is 'live' and responds to whatever inputs you provide.

Intentional or otherwise.

If you don't take the time to resolve that first 80% of equipment configuration, it's a fine line between you riding the board, and the board riding you.

9 hours ago, Corey said:

I understand where you are going, but the alignment of a car is more analogous to the design of the snowboard, i.e. the sidecut profile, taper, camber, camber/decamber.  The boot/binding interface is more analogous to the driver's seat/pedals/steering wheel.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Consider that: The sidecut and flex pattern determine the general displacement capacity of the board with regard to time, in which case they're reflective of HP and torque.

The boot (shell and liner) is the cockpit, which explains how an accomplished rider can function in a boot a little too large or too small, just as a good driver can make do from one car to the next. In each case the control surfaces might not be 'comfortable' to the rider/driver, but the locations and functions are generally familiar across platforms, so it's largely a matter of adjusting 'reach', timing and magnitude of input.

Front binding offset and setback are analogous to toe and caster angle. Offset to one side, and the board will be more responsive in that direction, as though your wheels were toed-out. The board/car will tend to track toward whichever side has more 'bite'.

This will be particularly noticeable on tricky/inconsistent surfaces, where the operator will be constantly acting/reacting to inconsistency.

Similarly, if you have too much or too little setback, the board will either resist turning, or be hyper/nervous.

If you take the time to 'tune' the analogous front end on a snowboard, you get to spend more time exploring/manipulating the handling characteristics, and less time compensating.

I've driven cars that were way out of alignment, aligned professionally 'within range', and then aligned that same vehicle myself to the exact specification.

That last tenth takes some time, which is why most don't go there.

The most obvious and immediate gain is a reduction in driver fatigue. 

 

9 hours ago, Corey said:

As long as you have full range of motion of your controls (car, snowboard, plane, whatever), you can make it work.  You can fine tune if you wish from there.  If you don't have a full range of motion, it's in your best interests to change things until you do.  I have zero data to back that up, but rather have noticed this trend across every sport/activity I've participated in.

I concur that 'range at rest' is a valid starting point, but it's only a start. Once in motion that range can and will be affected by board backfeed, whether you realize it or not. This is one of the reasons why a softbooter might demonstrate knee flexion at rest,  but cannot do the same while riding. Similarly, why the majority of hardbooters spend so much time in a flexed, muscular posture, rather than a stacked, structural posture.

Lift, cant, offset, setback, stance width, boot flex etc. all effect what the board 'sees' from the rider.

What the board sees determines how the board reacts, and how the board reacts determines rider movement options.

Given that you can't 'step off' while in motion, the primary goal of comprehensive boot binding configuration is to reduce, as much as possible, biased/unintentional inputs.

The more sensitive the chassis, the finer the resolution required.

 

 

 

 

[Gremlin]

9 hours ago, Corey said:

I understand where you are going, but the alignment of a car is more analogous to the design of the snowboard, i.e. the sidecut profile, taper, camber, camber/decamber.  The boot/binding interface is more analogous to the driver's seat/pedals/steering wheel.

To borrow Beckmanns analogy and observation, your hips down are the suspension under your bike. A mass suspended over a single control plane that requires counter steering in order to efficiently maneuver that mass into and out of turns.

Those counter steering motions are high resolution and achieved by the ankle when there's a sufficient range of motion left there, allowing the rest of the leg to function as springs and dampers. If the rom is compromised, the inputs for that board movement are both pushed further up the chain and reduced in resolution. This will cause those larger muscles to fatigue more quickly and be less available to act in supporting the mass.

A more grievous misalignment will require active compensation in order to not provide input to the board, or will provide it unevenly. A board that's twisted while the rider is at rest will track and hold badly, require large body movements to change edges, and be a generally disagreeable ride. The center of mass may not track vertically over the board, causing differential pressuring and edge hold through the turn or over uneven terrain. The inability to hold course without postural contrivance is not a recipe for success.

Seat/pedals/wheel don't contact the ground. They don't influence how the car interacts with the ground, just how you interact with the car.

 

It's a less eloquent version of what Beckmann said, but I was proofreading when he replied so you're stuck with it.

 

3 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

If you take the time to 'tune' the analogous front end on a snowboard, you get to spend more time exploring/manipulating the handling characteristics, and less time compensating.

+1

[Beckmann AG]

9 hours ago, pow4ever said:

However I can't tell the difference between very fine micro adjustment.  I wish I can but I just can't.

Hard to see the game when you're on the tailgate, not in the ballpark.

Consider that your particular frame might require a net boot board angle of +2 front, and +8 rear. Your boots have a built in angle of 10, and the shells have only so much range before they lock up. In order to stand comfortably at rest, you'll have to set your binding toe and heel lift to resolve cuff interference, which mitigates front foot ramp, but increases rear foot ramp. Given the nature of the inclined plane, your weight distribution will always be skewed, which means you're spending significant time reacting, rather than riding.

This effect being more dramatic as the incline increases. Sound familiar?

9 hours ago, pow4ever said:

Naturally talented rider is going to be able to ride no matter what.

A classmate skied XC at Nagano. I asked what most of the athletes were using for foot support. "Not much" he said.

Realized it's not so much that top athletes become top athletes by tuning their interface, it's that their conformation doesn't require much tuning, which allows them to become top athletes.

The rest of us walk a 'rougher' path.

Another friend ( Shocker! I have more than one) recently did a study correlating amount of pronation to instructor certification level at a major western resort.

No surprise; inverse relationship.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Beckmann AG

[rjnakata]

2 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

The rest of us walk a 'rougher' path.

+1  

[Corey]

15 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

However, the 80/20 rule as applied to alpine skiing and snowboarding runs in reverse, whereby the first 80% change (removal of 80% equipment related obstacles) allows the athlete to discover/uncover the first 20% of their potential.

Is that known or assumed?  (not meant to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious if there is/was a study on this)  It seems unlikely to me given the variety of setups one sees on the snow, but I happily change opinions with hard data that challenge my previous opinions.  There are a whole lot of awesome riders out there with F2 bindings with one or two of the stock shims in them.  Or some crazy Montana guys with equine parts.  I don't see them having 80% of their potential untapped. 

I'd be pretty ecstatic if I could extract a remaining 80% of potential out of my riding by spending some more time on my binding placement/angles/lift/cant!  I've adjusted my bindings by centering them on the insert packs, trying to reduce over/underhang, and adjusting away from discomfort as my skill/technique developed.  Then I adjust my body position to what each board wants.  That's a sample size of 1 with a large potential dose of placebo, so I don't know if that's wise or dumb.  

I'll drop the car analogy as it will only be a straw man to distract from this interesting discussion.  Cars are very complicated, as snowboards are very complicated.  Beyond both being fun things to turn money into smiles, a deep analysis of one doesn't yield much information about the other.  

[Gremlin]

It does seem like 80/20 could be a bit steep, but I remain hopeful for my future.

 

I've been riding hardboots for about five years now. I started with some beat and significantly too large Burton Winds. Being a longtime softboot carver, I was able to figure out how to throw myself into the cuffs and lay good trenches most of the way down a decently groomed hill. Chop was my limit; things like bumps, trees, steeps, or clean single cat width skidded turns were nigh unthinkable.

My focus was always on gross muscular activity. Where my hips were, which way my knees were going, how I was holding my hands and shoulders. They were most of my control and below the knees was dedicated simply to staying upright. Riding usually left me sore with tired shoulders and core.

Some UPZs that were too tight enough to start transferring foot motion and a pair of OS1s improved my game significantly. Controlled skidding was available through significant parts of the turn, terrain absorption improved. I could move my feet and ankles to allow them to do more controlling of the board and less struggling to stay under me.

Getting footbeds from Beckmann was a paradigm shift. After hours of shell punching, not being numb didn't hurt either. Unweighting didn't allow my feet to change shape under me anymore. Landings and turn transitions lost much mystery and uncertainty. I was more sensitive to small changes in lift and cant.

Now when my gear is dialed in, I can link smooth complete skidded turns in a cat track down most things with acceptable snow. I enjoy jumping off of all the things I would in softies, usually more quickly even. Changing the radius of a carve with countersteering mid turn is possible, as is selectively skidding and locking in the edge. Bumps are doable. My upper body is ever more still and relaxed.

Currently I've been working with a new set of FullTilts. Everything is terribly off. When I was out last the board was so twisted that I could barely have my front foot in the snow on my heels. The board was snapping around my front foot worryingly, the front would shoot off and there was no appreciable pressure on the back so it came around. I got to that point chasing something I thought was in my feet when it was actually a larger shell fit issue with my ankle keeping me from bearing weight properly on my heel. The boots just don't fit me as well as I'd initially thought and it wasn't evident to me until I rode and fought with them for a while.

 

Beckmann tunes his footbeds with a single piece of gorilla tape at a time, and it matters. I don't see why our more distal transmission and control surfaces should be treated with any less diligence and respect.

I understand people not being as dedicated, trust me. This is a serious rabbit hole to fall down. I'm regularly known to stop at the lift each run and change my jackscrews by a sixth or twelfth of a turn. I spend probably a quarter of my time on Spruce lapping a short easy blue working on things. I'll have had six pairs of boots in five years when my Langes get here. Nobody makes what I'm demanding out of a boot so they'll be some Frankenstein creation when I'm done.

If somebody is happy getting down the hill and has a reasonable amount of control, good with me regardless of what's around and under their feet. The more people we can get on alpine gear, the larger the market grows.

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:39 PM, Corey said:

Is that known or assumed?  (not meant to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious if there is/was a study on this)  It seems unlikely to me given the variety of setups one sees on the snow, but I happily change opinions with hard data that challenge my previous opinions.  

I'd be pretty ecstatic if I could extract a remaining 80% of potential out of my riding by spending some more time on my binding placement/angles/lift/cant!  I've adjusted my bindings by centering them on the insert packs, trying to reduce over/underhang, and adjusting away from discomfort as my skill/technique developed.  

I'll drop the car analogy as it will only be a straw man to distract from this interesting discussion.  Cars are very complicated, as snowboards are very complicated.  .... a deep analysis of one doesn't yield much information about the other.  

Edited the above for clarity.

---

If the reversed 80/20 isn't known or assumed, it should be.

Warren Witherell proposed the reversed 80/20 in either ‘How the Racists Ski’, or ‘The Apathetic Skier’.

Probably the latter.

Though I disagree with some of his findings pertaining to canting, heel lift and knee position, I’ve found his 80/20 proposition to be fairly solid in practice, assuming one uses it as a guiding principle, rather than an absolute goal.

Worth noting that sometimes the last 20% change for 80% gain isn’t a change to the equipment, it’s a change in how you choose to view a particular situation.

Also worth noting that as handling is affected by ‘alignment’ on both platforms, and that both platforms can be operated with sub optimal ‘alignment’, the car analogy is not a ‘straw man’.

Further, neither cars nor snowboards are complicated once you take the time to understand their workings. Persisting with that mindset is limiting.

On 2/23/2020 at 12:07 AM, Gremlin said:

Beckmann tunes his footbeds with a single piece of gorilla tape at a time, and it matters.

The system that regulates equilibrium is sensitive to finer increments of change. However, within the context of hardboots, it's not worth pursuing.

It's that 'point of diminished return' thing, directly related to the other materials contained within the boot construct.  

Point being, if you recognize the limitations of the system (and the individual parts of that system), and tune to the 'best possible' resolution, you get some interesting results. 

If you don't care to do that, understand that you may never reach your athletic potential. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Beckmann AG

[Corey]

10 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Further, neither cars nor snowboards are complicated once you take the time to understand their workings.

I have to take extreme exception to this. No one has perfected any car yet. They appear simple on the surface, but there are an endless series of compromises to be made along the design path. The minutiae of car design is far from optimized, as I believe it is for snowboards. There are numerous paradigm shifts still ongoing. See Madd 158, metal boards, Kessler sidecut/decamber, Donek Secret construction, Thirst sidecut/construction, etc. If it were simple, we'd be closing in on a consensus, but we're not. 

The rest; I'll just agree to disagree. Someday we'll meet in person and bore nearby people with our discussion.

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/23/2020 at 7:45 PM, Corey said:

I have to take extreme exception to this. No one has perfected any car yet. They appear simple on the surface, but there are an endless series of compromises to be made along the design path. The minutiae of car design is far from optimized, as I believe it is for snowboards. There are numerous paradigm shifts still ongoing. See Madd 158, metal boards, Kessler sidecut/decamber, Donek Secret construction, Thirst sidecut/construction, etc. If it were simple, we'd be closing in on a consensus, but we're not. 

The rest; I'll just agree to disagree. Someday we'll meet in person and bore nearby people with our discussion.

 

I'd have thought it reasonably clear that I was referring to the operating principles behind cars and snowboards, et al, not the oft-competing design challenges posed by market forces, regulation, materials, integration of new technology, etc. 

The latter being another topic entirely.

From Wikipedia:

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

E.G., "There are numerous paradigm shifts still ongoing. See Madd 158, metal boards, Kessler sidecut/decamber, Donek Secret construction, Thirst sidecut/construction, etc."

These are not paradigm shifts, but distractions from the original discussion. 

The focus of my earlier statements had to do with handling, how handling can be affected by attention to detail. If one understands systems, one is in a better place to affect those systems. A system in one context can be understood by studying a similar system in another context.

E.g., Engine output is governed by a data map and feedback system.

Your ability to ride is governed by a data map and feedback system.

Including or excluding considerations from the programming will influence range and potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chouinard]

On 2/23/2020 at 9:30 AM, Beckmann AG said:

"The Apathetic Skier’."

The Athletic Skier 

[lowrider]

Some people slide on snow others debate about how to slide on snow. Get off the keyboard and go slide on the snow It will be better for all of us.

[lonbordin]

2 hours ago, lowrider said:

Some people slide on snow others debate about how to slide on snow. Get off the keyboard and go slide on the snow It will be better for all of us.

No one forces you to visit or read the posts... 

Thinking people don't look to censor others... sorry to be so blunt.