Page 10 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 1007

Thread: Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland.ME.USA
    Posts
    6,440
    Quote Originally Posted by philw View Post
    So you still have a "flat spot" under your back foot, so all you're doing is eliminating the front one, as someone above points out.
    There would not be a (big) flat spot under the back foot, because the plate is elevated off the board, and only touches the board via an "axle". The flat spot would only be as big as the hardware used to mount that axle to the board.

    The fact that my front foot moves relative to my rear one a few cm here and there as I ride... well why is that important?
    A big part of the whole point is that your feet do not move relative to each other. The board in a carve forms an arc. The plate forms a constant chord spanning that arc:



    So if your board is the arc from B to X, the plate is the red line from B to X, and its length never changes. B is fixed in place but allowed to hinge, and X is free to slide or roll along the arc. From here you can imagine how as the board arc changes or undulates due to carving or impacting terrain, there is a reduction in impact to the rider, and the board enjoys greater freedom to flex independently of the rider.

    I think the rear should be the fixed axle, because terrain impacts to the board generally come from the front.

    The centrally fixed plate I am imagining would either need to be able to flex, thus eliminating or reducing the major benefits of the Apex style system, or it would depend on some squishy material between the plate and the board under both ends of the plate. I think that would be heavier and less effective, because it would affect the flex of the board.
    Last edited by Jack Michaud; May 20th, 2010 at 11:15 AM.
    new here? check out the Welcome Center and FAQs

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    LA, CA
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by NateW View Post
    I think you'd end up with a see-saw feel if it was anchored in the middle and floating an inch over the board at each end. You could fix the see-saw effect with a hinge the middle of the plate, and sliding mounts at the ends... but then you're no longer decoupling your binding cant/tilt from the flexing of the board.
    Must that be the case if you have the right sliding mounts? What if you used something like this on the ends:

    http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulleti...ad.php?t=30679

    And fixed the middle, maybe somewhat wider than a single line of inserts, to combat the see-saw effect (but smaller than a binding footprint perhaps).

    I'm still not sure how much this would gain us, but again, just thinking out loud here. Mike Tinkler must have a reason for a center mount versus the rear, or maybe that is just the way he builds the flex into his boards.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Michaud View Post
    The flat spot would only be as big as the hardware used to mount that axle to the board.
    Agreed, although you could also slim-down the size of the mount plate for conventional, unlinked bindings. Why has no one just done precisely that without any additional plates ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Michaud View Post
    A big part of the whole point is that your feet do not move relative to each other.
    Correct. My question was why does the fact that they move relatively on an un-plated board matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, merely asking why.

    there is a reduction in impact to the rider, and the board enjoys greater freedom to flex independently of the rider.
    Yes, you eliminate that few cm of movement. I'm surprised it makes that much difference.

    I'm not against the concept, just exploring it.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    inland northwest
    Posts
    2,871
    Quote Originally Posted by nekdut View Post
    I'm still not sure how much this would gain us, but again, just thinking out loud here. Mike Tinkler must have a reason for a center mount versus the rear, or maybe that is just the way he builds the flex into his boards.
    A plate mounted flat to the board (ie Tinkler) must flex with the board. An elevated isolation plate separates the binding from the flex of the board and could be perfectly rigid and still allow the board to flex without dead spots.
    The footprint of a plate binding and the footprint of an isolation plate mount are incomparable.
    N.I.C.E. at Schwietzer
    metal binders, plastic boots, powder snow, vive la glisse
    "
    Any cat can make cord. Only God can make powder." John E

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mammoth Lakes, CA
    Posts
    2,603
    Quote Originally Posted by philw View Post
    Correct. My question was why does the fact that they move relatively on an un-plated board matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, merely asking why.
    It's just another factor in removing feedback from the board. A consistent stance is also of benefit if not just for comfort.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland.ME.USA
    Posts
    6,440
    Quote Originally Posted by philw View Post
    Agreed, although you could also slim-down the size of the mount plate for conventional, unlinked bindings. Why has no one just done precisely that without any additional plates ?
    The original TD was that. Boards couldn't handle it. Then the TD was modified with a slightly larger disc and the bumpers. Then when the TD2 was designed to incorporate suspension, the footprint grew to what it is today. Although the rigid metal footprint of the TD2/3 is still similar to the TD1 - the TD2's suspension allows the board to flex more than if the entire footprint was rigid metal.


    Correct. My question was why does the fact that they move relatively on an un-plated board matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, merely asking why.
    It's more jarring to the rider, because the sole of your boot gets tilted up and back as the board bends, which is magnified up the boot cuff. And also some of your canting and lifting kind of goes out the window.

    Yes, you eliminate that few cm of movement. I'm surprised it makes that much difference.
    Take the diagram I posted above. If you alter the radius of the circle (flex the board), fix B and keep the length of BX the same, the movement of X along the circle is pretty small for reasonable changes in radius.
    Last edited by Jack Michaud; May 21st, 2010 at 11:12 AM.
    new here? check out the Welcome Center and FAQs

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Watkins, CO
    Posts
    1,001
    Sorry I haven't chimed in here. I've been gone all day and just returned. We rode at A-basin in fog so thick you could barely see past the end of your board at times. There was about 5in of fresh heavy stuff on top of mash potatoes. It was not a good carving day. We did pull out the new plates a put a bit of mileage on them. When I left at noon, nothing was broken and all looked good. Ice, Pukas, and Kress stuck around and kept the latest boards and the plates for the weekend. Hopefully the plates will get lots of miles.

    Oh! The consensus was that the plate is doing what it's supposed to do. They seemed to significantly smooth out the heavy piles of goo.
    Sean Martin - president/founder
    Donek Snowboards Inc.
    smartin@donek.com
    www.donek.com
    phone:877-53-DONEK

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Redmond WA USA
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by nekdut View Post
    Must that be the case if you have the right sliding mounts? What if you used something like this on the ends:

    http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulleti...ad.php?t=30679

    And fixed the middle, maybe somewhat wider than a single line of inserts, to combat the see-saw effect (but smaller than a binding footprint perhaps).

    I'm still not sure how much this would gain us, but again, just thinking out loud here. Mike Tinkler must have a reason for a center mount versus the rear, or maybe that is just the way he builds the flex into his boards.
    It looks to me like that system has one of the rider's bindings anchored to the board. The mechanism in the middle is just providing damping. The thing in the middle is a lever driven by the plate-to-board distance, which in turn drives a damper that runs from the center mechanism to the front binding.

    It seems to me that if the plate stays flat, and the board bends, there are two options:

    (a) the distance between the center of the plate and the center of the board has to increase, or

    (b) the distance between the board and the tips of the plate has to decrease

    If you attach one binding solidly and let the other slide, like Sean's plate, you have (a). If you attach the center solidly, I don't see a way to solve the seesaw problem with a complicated and/or obtrusive linkage between them. Like one layer of the mechanism that keeps the top of this contraption parallel to the floor:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "Here's an idea to make the board better - lock and delete threads that turn into pissing matches."
    - skategoat

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Redmond WA USA
    Posts
    1,314
    Holy ****. I feel a patent coming on.

    Mechanism for suspending a snowboarder above a snowboard...

    "Here's an idea to make the board better - lock and delete threads that turn into pissing matches."
    - skategoat

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,547

    Patent ??????????

    You might get a patent for suspending a rider over a boardBut as far as a patent on all this hardware and plate designs i think the train has left the station. the ski industry has done it all over and over I'm sure a patent lawyer would take your money and promise to make you rich but really 1% of 1% of the snowboard market ? If Jake Burton is paying attention to this thread he probably has a boat load on the way over as we speak. Have fun with these plates they work, their fun and from the response to these discussions they will be in all price ranges all shapes and sizes and available around the world. I'm even willing to bet the knuckle draggers are going to catch on there is just too much on offer once you try one.A final tribute to someone out there responsible for getting this going a long time ago is KILDIE THANK YOU !

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    near Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Posts
    1,724
    Sean, is it possible to invert the aluminum mounting structure? What I'm getting at is attaching to a board via the central 4x4 pattern with the lower blocks and attaching to the sides of the plate instead of vice-versa.

    Put me in the camp that would order one right now if they were available for 4x4 boards, but wouldn't buy one for at least a year or two if I had to buy a new board to fit. I have a feeling that there are a very significant number of people in that camp... Maybe have two versions? Clearly attaching to the board nearer to the edge will give some improved efficiency but it drives people to replace their entire quiver. That's a pretty hard sell no matter how awesome the product is.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Watkins, CO
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by corey_dyck View Post
    Sean, is it possible to invert the aluminum mounting structure? What I'm getting at is attaching to a board via the central 4x4 pattern with the lower blocks and attaching to the sides of the plate instead of vice-versa.
    While I have not played with this approach on paper, it is the one I have been considering as the most viable for my current design.
    Sean Martin - president/founder
    Donek Snowboards Inc.
    smartin@donek.com
    www.donek.com
    phone:877-53-DONEK

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by corey_dyck View Post
    Clearly attaching to the board nearer to the edge will give some improved efficiency
    or the mounting block could have outrigger-style arms to distribute that force where it needs to go?

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    287

    Plate Wars

    Let the plate wars begin!!!

    I can see 2011 being the Year of the Plate. With all the buzz around this thread alone (and many of you guys haven't even seen or riden one yet), the plate concept is gonna take off!

    The bottom line is plates work. And work well. Even die-hard opponents like Snowman and Ice were singing their praises while riding in thick gooey masehd potatoes yesterday. When plates were first described to me the primary goal was to preserve the stance. After riding them, I think that is actually secondary - what really makes the biggest difference is the suspension provided by the action of the fixed/sliding pivots as the board bends underneath.

    How the plate works and the overall concept is very simple (much simpler than many here are making it out to be). Once you ride one you'll get it. As far as my limited knowledge goes, it was Benjamin Karl who first made this type of plate. It was Apex that decided to capitalize on it (with the Olympics) and put the most hype behind it. Guess it really doesn't matter, as plates are here to stay, and we're going to be seeing a lot of them sprout up in the next season or two.

    As you can guess, the Bomber Plate is going to be, well, everything we expect and love from Fin. Sean's plate is actually quite ingenious - very simple and cost effective, and it works! The real race is going to be who can bring it to market first, and what is their focus going to be. As Jack mentioned above, there are a couple issues that are key;
    • Firstly, and without needed to be stated, it has to work and be reliable. Not break, like some already do...
    • weight, weight, weight - less weight is better!!!
    • cost
    • useability - 4x4, modified hangl, whatever, etc.
    Whether the plate mounts to a 4x4 patern in the center of the board width or modified hangl pattern closer to the edge and amount of resulting edge pressure, I feel, is irrelevant. Even adding wings to a 4x4 bracket to get more metal, and presumably more pressure, to the edge is just to appease the idea of more is better.

    There are a couple of tricky design issues that do have a big impact on the performance, and those issues revolve around stiffness, pivot location, mounting location and hardware. Each maker will undoubtably come to their own conclusions and design.

    Sean's plate may not be the lightest, but it may very well be the cheapest. Fin's plate may be the lightest, but it certainly won't be the cheapest. In my mind, any plate has got to weigh 5lbs or less. I see 4lbs being a holy grail - like 3 second 0-60 for super cars. Evey ounce makes a difference with these things.

    Another consideration in the weight game is since the plate acts as a suspension system, there's no need to run a suspension on the bindings, like we do w/ TD2's and TD3's. We'll be able to run lighter bindings, so the net weight of bindings + plate will be slightly less than just the added weight of the plate. Of course you can still run standard TD3's, or SW's, or whatever, as that's all we've got for now...

    Viva la Plate!!!

    I carve therefor I am

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland.ME.USA
    Posts
    6,440
    Agreed all around Michael, except I wonder about this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Pukas View Post
    Another consideration in the weight game is since the plate acts as a suspension system, there's no need to run a suspension on the bindings, like we do w/ TD2's and TD3's. We'll be able to run lighter bindings, so the net weight of bindings + plate will be slightly less than just the added weight of the plate.
    I was thinking about this very thing just yesterday, how maybe an in-binding suspension could be omitted, and how there could be an integrated plate + binding for even more weight savings. But then I remembered that the World Cup guys are still running flexy bindings or Sidewinders. I think the suspension in the TD3 and the Sidewinder is a different kind of suspension than what a plate provides, and maybe there is still a place/need for it. Of course I won't know until I ride a new plate.

    As for weight, this is crucial. I'll say again I didn't feel like the Vist was worth the weight for my freecarving enjoyment. For racing, absolutely, but not for a full day of playing, imo. For my money, if a plate weighs as much as a Vist, it better perform so well that I don't want to ride without it.

    As for the price, I think there will be room in the market for budget (freecarver) and premium (serious freecarver/budget racer) and super premium (high level racer) plates... that is unless a lower priced plate equals or betters the performance of a higher priced one, lol!
    new here? check out the Welcome Center and FAQs

  16. #286
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Michaud View Post
    I was thinking about this very thing just yesterday, how maybe an in-binding suspension could be omitted, and how there could be an integrated plate + binding for even more weight savings. But then I remembered that the World Cup guys are still running flexy bindings or Sidewinders. I think the suspension in the TD3 and the Sidewinder is a different kind of suspension than what a plate provides, and maybe there is still a place/need for it.
    I should clarify that I/we are thinking the E-rings are redundant on a plate and can be eliminated - and therefore some of the hardware can be scaled down - to save wieght. But the Side Winders are certainly a valid, maybe essential to some, additon/option. Many racers are prolly still gonna use the flexy bindings too... No reason not to use a TD3 - or a TD2 base plate & E-ring w/ a TD3 top plate to reduce height. At some point getting higher off the board doesn't pay off, and limiting the height of a plate is also a design criteria. More testing!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Michaud View Post
    As for weight, this is crucial. I'll say again I didn't feel like the Vist was worth the weight for my freecarving enjoyment. For racing, absolutely, but not for a full day of playing, imo. For my money, if a plate weighs as much as a Vist, it better perform so well that I don't want to ride without it.
    I haven't riden a Viste, but I've talked to a racer who's riden all - Viste, Hangl, Trappy's Plate, Bomber Plate, and he feels the Viste does not perform as well as the Karl-type plate. Apparently one short coming of the Viste is it bottoms out when the board flexes to a certain point. Can't recall exactly what a Viste, or Hangl plate, weighs, but they're both over 5 lbs. I see 5lbs as a cut off point - more than that and it starts to get too cumbersome. Yet so far the plates I've riden have been 5lbs +, and I would be happy to ride them all day. I think some of it will come down to conditioning and just getting used to riding with the extra weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Michaud View Post
    As for the price, I think there will be room in the market for budget (freecarver) and premium (serious freecarver/budget racer) and super premium (high level racer) plates... that is unless a lower priced plate equals or betters the performance of a higher priced one, lol!
    I think we're going to see that the most expensive plate will not be built or perform as well as a {one particular} lesser priced option.
    I carve therefor I am

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,299
    Weight of Vist is 2270grams ie 2.2kg and i can easily ride full day with it on my Coiler NSR

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest/ Portland Metro Area
    Posts
    7,162
    Quote Originally Posted by pokkis View Post
    Weight of Vist is 2270grams ie 2.2kg and i can easily ride full day with it on my Coiler NSR
    I agree, been riding with MASS for many years. "Light" has it's benefits. So does "Mass". In and of itself it has substantial dampening effects.

  19. #289
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    514
    Sean has come up with a plate system of his own that was tested yesterday. Its an different spin on a existing system with a wood deck instead of carbon fiber and super simple. I think that Sean is shooting for a price point system for those of us mere mortals who might shudder at the thought of paying $1000+ for the bling verision. Set up was simple and performance was excellent. I jammed it as hard and as often as I could in yesterdays gnarley conditions and it didn't pop! Not to shabby for a first run proto. I think this is going to be a good and affordable way for more and more people to experience the performance enhancements that plate systems provide. The weight penality is still there; my request for a 1.3lb version has yet to be satisified, so if your intending to lug it around all day you will probably want to find chair lifts with a foot rest. I think with some refinement and additional testing if might also find itself a home in the race leagues at the local level.
    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Last edited by Snowman; May 21st, 2010 at 12:58 PM.

  20. #290
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,547

    Congratulations plateriders

    Now you get it! Plate and hardware for $300 wow whats it made of ? The plates I make are epoxy wood laminate, aluminum inlay for screw re-inforcement the hardware is aluminum, stainless steel and all bronze bushings.Overbuilt? probably but i want it to last. The plates do take a beating.Some standards for insert placement on new boards would be helpful to control future costs as well as standard dimensions for (vist like) insert to fasten hardware on outer edges of boards a standard stance dimension would also help .Any board builders willing to accept the challenge?

  21. #291
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest/ Portland Metro Area
    Posts
    7,162

    Height

    I found that with plates + TD3 that height does, at some point, have it's own draw backs. Binding angles also effect the tolerance to height. I found that I preferred using TD2 cants on taller plates. Two reasons: I did not want the added height and the "Give" was accentuated.

    Keep in mind I run M29 boots at very steep angles (70-65), narrow boards. 17.5 to 19cm max.

  22. #292
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest/ Portland Metro Area
    Posts
    7,162
    Thanks for the photos and review Snowman!!

  23. #293
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    inland northwest
    Posts
    2,871
    I would think sidewinder toe/heel blocks mounted directly to the plate with high density elastomer cant/lift wedges would offer plenty of suspension with minimal weight or elevation gain. DYI custom placement should be easy enough for most of us gear heads.
    N.I.C.E. at Schwietzer
    metal binders, plastic boots, powder snow, vive la glisse
    "
    Any cat can make cord. Only God can make powder." John E

  24. #294
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,547

    Put a nose on that plate Sean

    Being a board builder you should realise that with a plate on your board the normal loads on the nose of your board are no longer supported by your big footprint ie: binding It would be prudent to extend the nose of the plate to prevent board failure in loose snow or hidden objects. Warning to board builders use of poorly designed plates could damage your reputation!

  25. #295
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest/ Portland Metro Area
    Posts
    7,162
    Quote Originally Posted by b0ardski View Post
    I would think sidewinder toe/heel blocks mounted directly to the plate with high density elastomer cant/lift wedges would offer plenty of suspension with minimal weight or elevation gain. DYI custom placement should be easy enough for most of us gear heads.
    Yep. Been done, probably where it is headed over time. Intregal binding plate systems.

  26. #296
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by www.oldsnowboards.com View Post
    Yep. Been done, probably where it is headed over time. Intregal binding plate systems.
    does the f2 conshox count?

  27. #297
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest/ Portland Metro Area
    Posts
    7,162
    Quote Originally Posted by kieran View Post
    does the f2 conshox count?
    As a plate? Yes, of course.

    However, not as an intregal plate / binding system.

  28. #298
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by www.oldsnowboards.com View Post
    intregal plate / binding system.
    oh, i see what you mean now.

  29. #299
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,547

    Where's the beef ?

    AS time progresses the point will be that you don't need that big beefy board once plates catch on.Put a nose on the plate to support the board and design a more forgiving board.It's not about the plate as much as it is an evolution in boards.But make plate hardware that fits lots of different boards.
    Last edited by lowrider; May 21st, 2010 at 01:38 PM. Reason: typo

  30. #300
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    1,547

    How do you know when it's beefy enough

    After you put the plate on and fold the nose? Ouch! All plates should have a nose!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •