Plate's effect on board?

[Beckmann AG]

7 hours ago, Jack M said:

Even if one could hone their technique and customize their boots (and how long would that take?) to the point where you were perfectly not pedaling, nose wheelie-ing, or warping the board in any way, you still would not be getting all the benefits of the plate, i.e., the suspension.

Nice conjecture.

That's not at all what I was thinking. Rather, newer plates are further harmonizing/focusing the often disparate inputs from each foot into something more useful. The effect is strikingly similar to what one gets when their ski boots are properly tuned for skiing, where the primary points of contact (ball of foot, bone of heel, eye of newt) can be aligned for rapid, accurate, powerful, and consistent manipulation of the platform.

But then you'd not have any way to know that. Or that I was thinking something other than what you thought I was thinking.

It's self-defeating to consider a plate as a suspension system, because it's not. At least not in the way you perceive suspension on a mtn bike, rallye car, motorcycle, etc.

If you're thinking of how a rigid bridge deck is 'suspended' and isolated from it's piers by way of floating mounts, then yes. Otherwise, no.

The chief benefit of a plate, is that it can unlock the actual suspension® system. What you're seeing at present is just the camel's nose.

BTW, properly tuned hardboots can do the same thing, just to a lesser extent. 

 

[lowrider]

The plate not only acts as suspension for the rider but also dramatically alters how the board acts in relation to the terrain. A board without a plate vibrates more rapidly than a board equipped with a plate. I believe that by simply reducing the boards undesirable vibrations with the use of a plate one greatly enhances one's ability to control the board. How does one consistently control a platform that  constantly vibrates violently ? Putting a plate on it does it for me.

[Beckmann AG]

16 minutes ago, lowrider said:

The plate not only acts as suspension for the rider

In what way? There is minimal vertical travel,  and no practical damping or means of dissipating energy in the vertical plane, etc.

 

 

16 minutes ago, lowrider said:

but also dramatically alters how the board acts in relation to the terrain. A board without a plate vibrates more rapidly than a board equipped with a plate.

Agree (for the most part). But the question that needs answering (or at least acknowledgement) involves the cause of the unwanted vibration.

Where is it coming from, and why?

16 minutes ago, lowrider said:

I believe that by simply reducing the boards undesirable vibrations with the use of a plate one greatly enhances one's ability to control the board.

Perhaps, unless the use of a plate isolates to the extent that it defeats the feedback loop governing optimal maintenance of equilibrium. Keep in mind that manipulation of the board is the primary means toward maintaining said equilibrium on a slippery surface, and said equilibrium can be either static or fluid. The latter being preferable.

16 minutes ago, lowrider said:

How does one consistently control a platform that  constantly vibrates violently ?

How does one consistently induce violent vibration into a platform? Some vibration is the simple byproduct of the board doing work on the snow (of which I have recordings). Other vibration is dissonant, and is caused by errant inputs, in combination with the background vibration. (Have those recordings as well).

'Violent' vibration is not inherent to the interaction of the board with the snow; rather, it's the product of the rider interacting with the board, thereby causing the board to act in conflict with the snow.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Beckmann AG

[SunSurfer]

2 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

The chief benefit of a plate, is that it can unlock the actual suspension® system.

"the actual suspension system being? (just aiming to get clarification)

a) the riders ankles/knees/hips and the muscles that move/support those joints allowing the motion of the rider's centre of mass to be smoothed?

and/or

b) the flex within the board being able to react to the supporting surface with minimal interference from the rider?

[lowrider]

I think it would be of great educational value for you to gather a recording of a board with a plate and a similar board  without. I had one taken a number of years ago of two identical Coiler boards ridden by two very capable riders. The evident lack of vibration on the plated board convinced me that a plate is a very valuable tool when riding less than ideal conditions. Unfortunately it is on a camcorder that is no longer functional. If some of the vibration is a byproduct of the board doing work on the snow why would it be less violent on the same  snowboard in the same conditions with a plate ? What role would the riders input on the plated board have as far as other vibrations that would cause it to vibrate less ?  

[lowrider]

1 hour ago, Beckmann AG said:

 

'Violent' vibration is not inherent to the interaction of the board with the snow; rather, it's the product of the rider interacting with the board, thereby causing the board to act in conflict with the snow.

My conclusion to date is that Violent vibration is inherent to the interaction of the board with the snow ( sometimes more sometimes less) but always less with a plate.

[lonbordin]

It's interesting where we are going when you look back at the smooth Vlhova skiing in the other thread here-

She's riding the latest Rossi's.

Rossignol has some important new technologies and construction techniques that are important to understand before we move forward. The big one is Line Control Technology. We chatted about this in both our 2019 Rossignol reviews, but we’ll go over it again. Line Control Technology refers to a center power rail made from titanal that is vertically laminated and runs through the middle of the wood core, vertically up and down the entire ski. It is designed to deliver stability and eliminate counter flexing, which translates to consistent edge grip and power. Rossignol has also developed Dynamic Line Control, which has come straight out of the Race department and actually uses a hydraulic smart system that neutralizes and disperses kinetic energy to ensure the highest level of control and keep your skis tracking exactly where you want to go.

Edited January 18, 2019 by lonbordin
Or maybe this is where the Dr wanted us to go all along?

[pow4ever]

Any 1 else find that plate's removal of the "warning sign"/"You are getting to close to the edge" worrisome?
Could be a tuning/inexperience thing/driver error on my part.

Pain/unwanted noise is our body's way tell us something is wrong.  You should paid attention.
In some situation dulling it make perfect sense.  It some scenario the outcome is not so good.

Can we have our cake and eat it too? 

[Beckmann AG]

10 hours ago, lowrider said:

My conclusion to date is that Violent vibration is inherent to the interaction of the board with the snow ( sometimes more sometimes less) but always less with a plate.

ONE DAY during his tenure as a professor, Albert Einstein was visited by a student. "The questions on this year's exam are the same as last year's!" the young man exclaimed.

"Yes," Einstein answereed, "but this year all the answers are different."

10 hours ago, lowrider said:

The evident lack of vibration on the plated board convinced me that a plate is a very valuable tool when riding less than ideal conditions.

 Interesting that plates seem to be favored on the hardest surfaces, and such surfaces are considered 'ideal' for world cup ski racing.  Pause for thought, perhaps?

10 hours ago, lowrider said:

If some of the vibration is a byproduct of the board doing work on the snow why would it be less violent on the same  snowboard in the same conditions with a plate ? What role would the riders input on the plated board have as far as other vibrations that would cause it to vibrate less ?  

Music is often the byproduct of generating vibrations on a particular instrument. And yet some can make a wonderful piece of music miserable and violent by way of their manipulation of that instrument. 

Consider that in an ideal circumstance, the board would fully grip the snow while gliding through an arced path. The grip will be directly affected by how well the formerly planar board can match the non-planar surface. If the board is held in it's de-cambered state by one point of contact along it's length, it will be 'most free' to do so. This is akin to a when you pick a guitar string and leave it alone.

If you maintain that de-cambered state with two points of contact, the board will still follow the surface, but is 'less free' to do so, that freedom further constrained by the pressure distribution at each controlling point.

This is akin to shortening the guitar string against the fret.  Same string, same initial input, different vibration.

Sooner or later, you'll come upon an input combination that causes a violent reaction between board and surface. Just as sooner or later an enthusiastic music student will play the 'wrong' note.

Learning to ski or ride well is, in that sense, a lot like learning how to play blues harmonica. You spend the first year learning how to play all the notes, and the next ten learning which notes not to play.

The plate essentially prevents or interferes with the possibility of doing some of the 'wrong' things at the 'wrong' time, thereby discouraging some of the 'wrong' outcomes.

The primary drawback to date, other than weight and complexity, seems to be related to a perceived disconnect for the rider.

 

2 hours ago, lonbordin said:

Or maybe this is where the Dr wanted us to go all along?

Was hoping you would notice (among other things) that Vlhova and Shiffrin, in addition to being waay out in front of the field, are also very very good at providing near identical inputs to both feet, both skis at the same time, more of the time (see also, not pedaling).  Essentially creating one 'more unified' platform out of two independent platforms. Sharing the net load of the turn on two legs requires less strength, which allows for greater accuracy, therefore less work is done to the surface, therefore energy is conserved and the skier glides faster.

The ski construction thing is most likely advance marketing work. Though it's worth noting that ski manufacturers have been using various construction techniques to enhance torsional rigidity since at least the early 80's. (see Dynastar, Omega rib)

The industrial teaching/coaching complex will tell you to emphasize weight distribution to the outside ski, as they will also tell you there is a benefit to twisting your snowboard. Clearly both are false, if you want to be consistently fast (etc.) under pressure.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Beckmann AG
The some of all gears

[daveo]

15 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

 Interesting that plates seem to be favored on the hardest surfaces, and such surfaces are considered 'ideal' for world cup ski racing.  Pause for thought, perhaps?

Erm, sorry but don't WC skiers also use plates of sorts between their bindings and the ski?

[Beckmann AG]

3 minutes ago, daveo said:

Erm, sorry but don't WC skiers also use plates of sorts between their bindings and the ski?

Indeed. But there's no pretense that those plates are a suspension system, and their function is distinctly different than snowboard plates. At risk of pedagogy, the original Derbyflex was intended to dampen vibration. Which it did. However, the primary gain was that the added height of that plate served to make the ski itself 'narrower', thereby granting the skier, under typical circumstances, a mechanical advantage.

There are height limits in place today, on account of the reversibility of that mechanical advantage, which in one instance may have lead to the death of Ulrike Maier. 

 

The intent was to point out that what a recreational rider sees as 'less than ideal' for their own activities is actually 'ideal' for a higher performance version of their activities.

[lowrider]

I think were sort of on the same page as far as the idea that less is more when were talking unwanted vibration on the riding platform.If so why wouldn't it be an advantage to have less vibration by using a plate in less than ideal conditions.Have my plated Coiler tuned and ready for the boilerplate today as runs are man made (snow) crap ! The coming storm  from the west will probably bless you with tons of snow. Looks like it will give us a miss. My only thought pertaining to the correlation of ice with respect to ski racing and riding plates is that it serves to separate those who are interested in challenging themselves. Can't say i have the killer winning DNA but i like the though that most people stay away from poor riding conditions which opens an opportunity for me to experiment on more open slopes.

[daveo]

22 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

Indeed. But there's no pretense that those plates are a suspension system, and their function is distinctly different than snowboard plates. At risk of pedagogy, the original Derbyflex was intended to dampen vibration. Which it did. However, the primary gain was that the added height of that plate served to make the ski itself 'narrower', thereby granting the skier, under typical circumstances, a mechanical advantage.

But which of the plates, apart from say Geckos, really act like a suspension system?

Ski plates started as dampening, then lifting and now force distribution or a combination of these. There are different snowboard plates which fit those descriptions, also...

Edited January 18, 2019 by daveo

[lowrider]

Mr Beckman i really respect your opinion as well as analysis of the dynamics of the ride but for the sake of further discussion could you at least try a plate some time soon ?  

[daveo]

So just want to share my first experience with a plate. Rode a Donek plate for half a day. Broke the hardware mid-turn. Took the plate off at the bottom of the run. Took about 10min. Pretty empty run, that's why I like it. Went back up. Was so bumpy that it knocked me about so hard that my boot overflexed and I sprained my ankle. Didn't even notice this, while it was plated.

Ever since then I've ridden a plate. When I swap between my powder (unplated) board and my carve (plated) board I can notice the difference immediately in the amount of bumps my legs need to soak up with an unplated board. It feels peaceful and silent when I ride a plate.

That's all.

Edited January 18, 2019 by daveo

[Rob Stevens]

Hi Erik. 

 Is intentionally creating different edge angles along the length of the board during a turn “pedalling”? Is it the same, in your mind, as “twisting”?

 For my clarity, I’m thinking you don’t necessarily mean that. Pedalling could be more a focus on one foot pushing or pulling independently, while twisting is... just that.

 Do you see benefits to using either in situations outside alpine carving or the race course? I know we’ve talked about this before, but I find myself doing both.

 Hers an example: carving through rough conditions, I might meet a bump with an edge angle suitable for where I just was, but not for where I am now. To compensate, I’ll back off the forward half of the boards edge angle just a bit, so it doesn’t hook uphill. With that crisis averted, the board remains on its line, so I don’t have to back off the rear half’s edge angle. The above is sometimes accompanied by relaxing pressure on the front foot, where back foot pressure increases as a side effect.

 Bear in mind all the above is in a low angle, wide stance. 

 Thanks for reading and apologies for taking this thread into the weeds from its original intent. 

 

[2012Alpine1]

I run a BBP4mm on a Donek metal Axxcess its a softer board rockered its fun and can ride it all day effortless. I put the plate on a 2009 NSR 180 the board lost its stabllity at high speeds to stiff too many moving parts took it off never put it back on It doesnt need the plate. Just my 2 cents!!

[Jack M]

3 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

Interesting that plates seem to be favored on the hardest surfaces, and such surfaces are considered 'ideal' for world cup ski racing.  Pause for thought, perhaps?

Snowboarders don't have another foot to put down, and have half the available edge length.  This is why we don't race any faster than GS anymore.

On an imperfect or bumpy surface, the "suspension" (or partial isolation or whatever you want to call it) of a plate helps for obvious reasons.  On a hard surface that is smooth*, the plate improves edge penetration.  I think it does this by reducing twist (pedaling) and by its better "footprint" on the board than bare bindings.  Yes, I suppose if your boots/bindings/setup/technique are perfect, you might achieve the same edge hold on a smooth surface.  But scant few people in the world spend the time to achieve that perfection, or even have the wherewithal.  The rest of us can opt for a plate, and get further than we ever would otherwise.

*conditions only enjoyed by the first few racers down a course, or by weekend warriors on the first couple runs after opening bell.

[Corey]

@Beckmann AG - I can't pick apart your theory.  However, trying to do so would be a bit of a strawman argument.  Why do the vast majority of WC racers use plates?  Do you think they've all been fooled by the big-$ plate manufacturers' marketing budgets (said purely tongue-in-cheek), or they've all been fooled by following a few riders who have succeeded in spite of using a plate?  

No human interacting with an irregular surface will be as clean and tidy as a guitar string vibrating freely.  We can't explain why plates work, but empirical evidence suggests there is a clear benefit on the race course.  Benefits for recreational riders are clearly affected by that rider's personal goals, given that some people love them and some hate them. 

To blankly dismiss the technology is a bit like claiming the earth is flat because no one has proven that it's perfectly spherical.  

[st_lupo]

I'd guess that one of the major benefits of the plate is that (depending on the mounting style of the plate) it removes two problem modes of rider input: A)twist and B) flat-spots in the boards longitudinal bend.  I remember a Donek video showing that a weighted and inclined board should describe an ideal/clean arc on a plane.  The nose starts the arc and the rest of the  board follows through the same arc.  If the rider provides conflicting inputs that twists the board or puts wiggles on its longitudinal flex, then different parts of the board are going to want to follow slightly different arcs, and you will wind up plowing an arc instead of cleanly cutting the arc.  It could be interesting to hear if plates have different levels of improvement on single radius sidecuts, VSR, clothoid, etc.  

There is probably also a component that gives better damping characteristics of the board+plate+rider system due to the removal of a couple of mechanical constraints that are otherwise imposed by a flat mounted boot.  Where the rider interface with a plate is akin to a simple supported beam and the interface with the bindings on the board removes the freedom of the board to rotate under the boot.

[Treebeard]

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Treebeard

[Rob Stevens]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:23 PM, rjnakata said:

Question: does an isolation plate stiffen or soften a board, or neither?

Ie is it best to use a plate on a board suited for your weight or one made for a different rider weight?

I’m going to look at this from the angle that a plate is suspension of a kind.

Plates that I’ve seen can be locked at one end or the other (sorry if this is wrong... I don’t see many plates, to be honest!), or left to float free. In reading the other thread, (dated) the preferred tech was to float the front. Oldsnowboards liked to float the back. I’m sure plenty of you have it open at both ends.

If you take a shock absorber as a parallel, we could think of this unit as one that works horizontally (more or less), rather than vertically (more or less); the component on the top sheet of the board (the rough side) is the stanchion, and the plate side part, the slider. The board itself provides the damping (generally the internals of a shock), where the flex characteristics offer compression (bend it) and rebound (it snaps back) “circuits”. As this is a really short stroke shock, it can only damp a small range of motion. As it happens, the movements between feet and board can likely be best optimized in the realm of centimetres. 

(That last bit has now got me spiraling on comparisons with pow (no) surfing (boarding)).

If your board is more free to flex without effecting your feet, you might say the board would likely feel “softer” because a previously rigid connection is now damped. Locking the ends of the plate (at the front seems to me like it would suck the most) should do a lot to prove the counterpoint. That’s possibly why me and my pals generally prefer the stanchion and the slider to move relative to one another, when it’s bumpy.

Bear in mind that if you’ve thrown the board sideways to the bumps, your board will still, like your pre plate setup, probably feel undamped underfoot as you are now pounding away with the linear force right in line with your bolts. 

To your last question, you still weigh the same, and if a snowboards goal is to cut an arc, you’re probably just letting it do its job better with the plate. If the plate makes you a faster, better rider, then you might want a different board (unless you have $; then you should get the stiffer / softer board).

[Beckmann AG]

19 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

"the actual suspension system being? (just aiming to get clarification)

a) the riders ankles/knees/hips and the muscles that move/support those joints allowing the motion of the rider's centre of mass to be smoothed?

and/or

b) the flex within the board being able to react to the supporting surface with minimal interference from the rider?

a and b, with b preceding a.

Neither a or b are plate dependent, nor is the effect on b of a plate dependent on a. The plate has a capacity to enhance both, however.

7 hours ago, lowrider said:

If so why wouldn't it be an advantage to have less vibration by using a plate in less than ideal conditions.

It would be an advantage. It would be a greater advantage if the rider in question could achieve, say, 85% of the plated board effect without the plate, as those required refinements in technique, input, setup etc, when applied to the plated board, should further enhance performance.

7 hours ago, lowrider said:

My only thought pertaining to the correlation of ice with respect to ski racing and riding plates is that it serves to separate those who are interested in challenging themselves.

That it does. But do you notice how, for the most part, WC racers make it look like groomed hardpack?  Ice is certainly challenging, but when you consider how consistent it is, one has to wonder why so many have such difficulty dealing with it. One would think that a consistent surface, combined with consistent and appropriate inputs, should yield consistent 'adhesion'. As it does for Hirscher, Vlhova, Shiffrin, et al.

Certainly works for Hockey...

7 hours ago, daveo said:

But which of the plates, apart from say Geckos, really act like a suspension system?

I'm of the position that none of them are. At least not in the practical sense; as in Mtn bikes, MX, Rally car, etc.  As mentioned above, a plate can allow a rider to employ their lower extremities in a manner very similar to those kinds of suspension systems, complete with variable damping etc, and a well-configured non-plated setup can provide similar, albeit with a smaller margin for rider input error.

7 hours ago, daveo said:

Ski plates started as dampening, then lifting and now force distribution or a combination of these

The force distribution plates, like the integrated Marker Comshock, and a few of the Salomon offerings, were mainly aimed at the recreational performance market.

Forgot to mention that risers also prevent the 'boot out' phenomenon, allowing an athlete to achieve higher relative edge angles without accidentally lifting the edge from the snow. 

 

[Rob Stevens]

14 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

That it does. But do you notice how, for the most part, WC racers make it look like groomed hardpack?  Ice is certainly challenging, but when you consider how consistent it is, one has to wonder why so many have such difficulty dealing with it. One would think that a consistent surface, combined with consistent and appropriate inputs, should yield consistent 'adhesion'. As it does for Hirscher, Vlhova, Shiffrin, et al.

Certainly works for Hockey...

 

If you’re of the ape variety, you’ll probably be better at any sport that mimics swinging through the trees.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Rob Stevens

[Rob Stevens]

18 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

 

I'm of the position that none of them are. At least not in the practical sense; as in Mtn bikes, MX, Rally car, etc.  As mentioned above, a plate can allow a rider to employ their lower extremities in a manner very similar to those kinds of suspension systems, complete with variable damping etc, and a well-configured non-plated setup can provide similar, albeit with a smaller margin for rider input error.

 

How about this... If your feet aren’t moving much, relative to your centre when loaded on edge, destabilizing inputs (call it terrain input “error”) only need to be comparatively small when you look at what blows it might take to throw you off at the knees, or further up the chain.

Thinking that way, a couple of centimetres of “suspension travel” via the plate is all you need to stabilize the foot in this limited range of displacement.

Small absorption’s for an area of small movements.