Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

[b0ardski]

I'm looking forward to using a plate on my ID 185 carbon race. With a very stiff, thick core I could use a little extra pressure on the nose, no worries of folding it.
I assume Donek's plate fits 18 wide boards, maybe I can get that beast to bend in less than hero conditions.

[kieran]

maybe I can get that beast to bend in less than hero conditions.

sean most likely has some math that can tell you what % less effort it takes to decamber your board per mm of plate/riser height added.

[Michael Pukas]

Putting a nose on a plate to provide an additional contact point between plate and board is just going to create a new load point on the board and change where the board bends in relation to the plate. Unless the nose of the plate can flex with the board, independly of the plate bewteen your feet which you don't want to flex, the board won't be "supported". It's just going to have a new point load to bend & break around.

Adding a nose to a plate is also going to add more mass, weight, material, complexity and expense - all of which we don't want/need.

Agreed - board design is going to have to be tweaked to be optimized for plate usage. But I don't see boards getting less beefy - and that doesn't mean less forgiving.

[lowrider]

Unlike the load point from your big heavy foot and boot ,the load point of the plate nose will be less. 1/2 per foot? (in length).But then it might scratch the top sheet.

[lowrider]

Was that plate failure or board failure as a result of long nose on plate?

[Snowman]

Was that plate failure or board failure as a result of long nose on plate?

It was a plate failure. Unfortunately I can't elaborate on the details.

Think Snow!

[SunSurfer]

I've been looking for reliable ways to fit new inserts to a 4x4 board to allow for lateral insert placement and possible retro fitting plate system to 4x4 board.

There appear to be at least 3 wholesale suppliers of pre-Ptex'd 7 & 9mm depth inserts, together with a specifically designed countersink drill to create the correct cavity to seat the inserts in.

www.maislinger-snoli.com
www.wintersteiger.com
www.sulzberg-sport.de

There is a French site
http://www.worden.fr/boutique/index....0-1604SM9.html
that will sell the inserts alone, doesn't seem to have the countersink drill.
There are also some Russian and a Slovenian site I found that may sell you the inserts.

Finally in the thread "Chronicles of a home-made plate system"

I found the p-tex inserts at Joe Jones in Scarborough, Maine. Guy just gave me a couple. Said that hadn't used them in years. They used to use them retrofitting 4x4 insert patterns into older boards. I used one on a board I got that came from the factory missing an insert. A countersink I had in my shop worked just fine. The rest went just as described above. I've been using the board like that for a few seasons now without a hitch.
So they are out there...just have to know where to look.

The photo shows the kit that Snoli market, but they also have inserts and drill separately.

I can foresee a market for this stuff to allow the full range of plate systems to fit any 4x4 patterned alpine board.

Does anyone know of any other commercial supplier selling both inserts and/or countersink?
Is this the kind of thing that All Board Sports, Hardbooter, or Bomber might be interested in adding to their Accessories line?

SunSurfer

[Donek]

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?

Fin and I have already discussed this. We are currently using the same hole pattern and intend to work with other manufacturers to try to come to an agreed upon standard.

[Michael Pukas]

Does anyone know of any other commercial supplier selling both inserts and/or countersink?
Is this the kind of thing that All Board Sports, Hardbooter, or Bomber might be interested in adding to their Accessories line?

SunSurfer

We may be doing that to my Kessler as it only has 4x4 inserts. I'll let you know how it goes and pass on more info when I get it...

And, yeah - I completely agree - with the rising interest in plates, there's definitely going to be a market for insert kits. Depending on what mounting options are avaiable and what drawbacks may come with a 4x4 patterned bracket. One limiting factor to retro fitting old [narrow] boards with new inserts is going to be the width of the "new standard" plate pattern.

[Michael Pukas]

Unlike the load point from your big heavy foot and boot ,the load point of the plate nose will be less. 1/2 per foot? (in length).But then it might scratch the top sheet.

Actually, that not true either. Because the front pivot slides, there's no [significant] load there - that's why the board can bend without disturbing the riding on top of the plate. Placing a point load out in front of the front binding via a nose will add a larger point load due to the larger level arm of the plate - all of your body mass and force moving forward will be concentrated on one point instead of two.

[lowrider]

Standard stance and width of insert placement for future consideration of 2nd generation plates and hardware that is non 4x2,4x4,4x6 anyone have a number in mind???

[jp1]

lowrider, I heard a (rumor) that it was recently agreed upon by some of the major players to make the pattern the same as an existing plate system, the one that begins with an "A" and ends with an "X".
I'm sure more information will follow.

[lowrider]

So you are considering the front slide as the fulcrum pt. for cantaleaver ?i'll accept that.But as a static load pushing down on two points wouldn't the load on the nose one foot away from the fulcrum points be less? Since both fulcrum points are still in contact with the ground. rebuttal then we move on to find some standard dimensions.

[Buell]

Actually, that not true either. Because the front pivot slides, there's no [significant] load there - that's why the board can bend without disturbing the riding on top of the plate. Placing a point load out in front of the front binding via a nose will add a larger point load due to the larger level arm of the plate - all of your body mass and force moving forward will be concentrated on one point instead of two.

How is there no load under the pivot point just because it slides. It slides to allow the board and the plate to flex in different arcs. That does not mean there is not tremendous load there.

I ask you, if there is no significant load under the pivot that slides, where is the load being transferred? It must be passing between the plate and the board somewhere?

If the plate extends forward, beyond the plate's front mounting location and the board does flex up to contact the front of the plate, only then will the load at the front sliding pivot contact point be reduced at all.

[lowrider]

While we have the wish list going can we shoot for the impossible???

[Michael Pukas]

So you are considering the front slide as the fulcrum pt. for cantaleaver ? i'll accept that.

Yes - the front pivot is a fulcrum point for the cantileverd plate to the rear. When you lean forward with no nose/bumper you are actually lifting the back of the board via the rear bracket, bending it around the front bracket. If you put a nose and bumper in front of the front bracket, then you are moving the fulcrum point forward to the location of the bumper - even more force can be applied due to the longer lever.

In a riding situation, since the front pivot slides, it does not create a fulcrum point [with the same point load] because it moves and allows a greater length of the board to bend and abosrb the force applied to it. If you put a bumper under the nose of a plate, and that become the fulcrum point, the board is going to bend around that point from the force against the snow. The plate isn't going to assist or support the board in abosorbing the shock unless that portion of the plate can flex as well (which on the Apex plate it does to some degree because it is not reinforced/stiffened like underfoot to).

But as a static load pushing down on two points wouldn't the load on the nose one foot away from the fulcrum points be less? Since both fulcrum points are still in contact with the ground. rebuttal then we move on to find some standard dimensions.

A staticlly loaded board isn't in danger of breaking - and there are no forces being applied to the riding when the board is staticly loaded. It's the dynamic loads that are applied as the board is moving forward over an uneven surface. Where ever a point load is introducded becomes the fulcrum point.

At first (long before this conversation) I thought a nose - and possibly a tail - w/ variable bumpers and placements was a good idea too. A rider could modify the flex of their board to suite their preference and varying conditions. I've since been convinced it's not a good idea and board designs needed to be tweaked to be best suited to a plate.

[Michael Pukas]

How is there no load under the pivot point just because it slides. It slides to allow the board and the plate to flex in different arcs. That does not mean there is not tremendous load there.

I ask you, if there is no significant load under the pivot that slides, where is the load being transferred? It must be passing between the plate and the board somewhere?

Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts... there are two scenarios in my head I'm beginning to see need to be distinguished, as each presents differing forces - moving forward when in a neutral position, and loading the nose [possibly to initiate a turn].

your right - it's not correct to say there is no load at the front pivot just because it slides. But because it slides, in a moving forward situation, there is no fulcrum point directly on the board. The slide allows the board to bend over it's entire length, thus absorbing and distributing the load over it's entire length. That action is what keeps the rider stable on top.

When loading the nose of the board, the front pivot does act as a fulcrum point - to some degree. The plate acts as a level arm, with all of the body's mass on it, rotating around that point. When loading the nose of a board with a plate there is much less area of the board to bend - that area in front of the front bracket - than with just bindings - everything in front of the rear foot. Significantly more force is applied to the nose. That's when the front of the board folds around the front bracket and I face plant. The GS boards w/ a stiffened front end can handle the extra load from the plate, thus the nose can be loaded without folding.

The plate itself should really not flex - very little if at all. The more the plate flexes, the less well it works, and actually becomes much more fatiguing to the rider.

If the plate extends forward, beyond the plate's front mounting location and the board does flex up to contact the front of the plate, only then will the load at the front sliding pivot contact point be reduced at all.

Sure, introducing a new load point in front of the front bracket will reduce the load at the front bracket. But, if either that new point is slidable or the nose of the plate is flexible, you're introducing a fulcrum point that the board will be forced to bend around. You're not stiffening the front of the board consistently; you're preventing it from bending in one spot and forcing it to bend in another.

I don't have personal experience - only conversations with people with experience - with plates w/ a nose and adding bumpers; maybe some of those people will chime in!

I hope I'm making some sense and not getting myself into hot water. I'm not trying to be argumentative - only trying to relay my experiences so far (as well as understand what is going on and write competently about it). It really is a simple system, and your gonna love it!

[bobdea]

Fin and I have already discussed this. We are currently using the same hole pattern and intend to work with other manufacturers to try to come to an agreed upon standard.

Sean, that's awesome, care to elaborate? same as the apex plate?

do you think a wider one would benefit a softbooter on a BX board?

[Bruce Varsava]

lowrider, I heard a (rumor) that it was recently agreed upon by some of the major players to make the pattern the same as an existing plate system, the one that begins with an "A" and ends with an "X".
I'm sure more information will follow.

Finally someone telling the truth

[Michael Pukas]

Finally someone telling the truth

Hey Bruce! Care to jump in and enlightened us unwashed masses???

[nekdut]

Fin, Sean and others: please make your plate compatible with 17.5-18cm boards. I like what the Vist does for me already, but I can only use it only my 19cm+ wide boards. I can only imagine how much a fully rigid and floating version would feel.

Worse comes to worst, I could even take a saw to the Vist, but I would definitely prefer not to.

[matiu68]

Some plate of the past 1990-1993

[Donek]

Some plate of the past 1990-1993

I had heard these concepts went back that far. Thanks for sharing the photos. Can you provide some insight into what was being done back then. Were there other designs?

[lowrider]

Check out 2008 thread "Kildie" He is the guy who knows the truith about plates.

[Jack Michaud]

Speaking of Kildy reminds me of Tinkler... what is he up to now? Didn't Team USA campaign his version of a Karl-style plate in the Olympics? It would seem to me that the Karl (Apex) plate has rendered a Kildy style plate obsolete. Just looks like a better mousetrap to me, and it seems the WC agrees.

[b0ardski]

Speaking of Kildy reminds me of Tinkler... what is he up to now? Didn't Team USA campaign his version of a Karl-style plate in the Olympics? It would seem to me that the Karl (Apex) plate has rendered a Kildy style plate obsolete. Just looks like a better moustrap to me, and it seems the WC agrees.

I think we're talking about 2 different types of plate. A tinkler style plate, especially with snow stix, is all about affecting camber and actively downloading the tip/tail, the new geneation of "isolation" plate (from 15yr old ski tech) is all about removing influence over the board to allow it to flex naturally the way it was built to.

Vist/Hangl style plate may fade away from WC as "direct to board mounted plates" are replaced by isolation style plates, but "camber affecting" plates like Tinkler/Conshock types may still be an option for recreational riders to enhance their boards.

[nekdut]

Tinkler snow stix and the plate are not dependent on each other. You can have one without the other and vice-versa. The full combo is great of course though . Tinkler plates do provide a single fulcrum point so the board bends smoothly, and provides dampening/lift, outside of the camber tweaks. Vist accomplishes the same thing, though possibly not as well, nor as elegantly.

[heroshmero]

I remember there being really good photos of Tinkler's work on his new website.

Does anybody know the new website address? I've lost it.

[Hans]

http://www.tinklertoys.com/Home.html

[tinks]

Jack thanks for the thought and inquiry about my Olympic team and Plates, even if it was after someone mentioned Kildy HA!! HA !!. Looks like people think plates are cool now. That's great to see after driving the band wagon by myself for so long it's fun to have company.. Just a little up-date. We are going to be testing all our new plates in Chile this summer so will be ready by next year to build on our World Cup success from last year and the 13 years before that. Klug thinks all the interest is great for the sport and is looking forward to offering access to all our new stash.