Alpine Snowboard Plate Systems

[~tb]

The plete worked great on a Burner also. Slow speed handling is much better on the Burner than on the new decks. . . . Plate on Old Glass Deck=

Think Snow!

I have been waiting for the 4X4 plates to be tested. I had a feeling someone would post a review like this.

Personally, I would love to see someone try the combo of:
New VSR sidecut
Traditional camber profile (no decamber)
Metal construction.
moderate amounts or possibly no rubber

Ill be able to come close. Gen 1 Donek metal that I still love (the ones that sounded like a tin can on ice), with the 4X4 plate that I hope is comming my way some time soon.

KEep the posts comming you luck SOB's with snow!

[Donek]

We shot some video yesterday. We all took turns with the camera. I need help stabilizing the follow cam stuff though. You'll see Fin on his plate with one of the spring prototypes and Mark and I rode the Donek 4X4 Plate on some glass boards. I also got in a few runs on my Incline with Catek FRs and Deelux soft boots. Was a great application for soft boot carving. The chopped up snow at the end of the day had that freeride board skipping all over the place, but the plate was rock solid. We got some HD follow cam footage with a droid or iphone on the softies. Hopefully I'll get that footage soon.

[kieran]

i'm almost afraid to put the plate on my f2, lest i highside myself into oblivion on the first turn.

[Donek]

I got an e-mail from johnasmo today and figured out the follow cam shake reduction. It's no masterpiece, but it should get better with practice.

[Fleaman]

has anyone had any experience with these used as the front sliding assembly.



not sure how strong they are but might work good.

the website is http://www.lm76.com/

[Donek]

has anyone had any experience with these used as the front sliding assembly.



not sure how strong they are but might work good.

the website is http://www.lm76.com/

I don't know of anyone using something like this. It is a bit overkill in that the total travel on these systems is somewhere around 1cm. We allow for a little over 1.5cm, but I think in general the most you will see is 8mm of travel. We have something similar on the dresser for our stone grinder, and I'm not very impressed with the wear. It experiences very small loads, yet seems to wear out long before I would expect it to. It is in a wet abrasive environment though.

[fin]

Sean is right, I just measured the total travel of our plate test last week and we are hitting a maximum travel right now of 6mm. It is amazing how little the system moves but what a huge difference it makes.

These linear slides in the above picture are pretty cool and precise, but over kill for this. Also, in my design we have steered away from actual ball-bearing for this application. With such low travel and low velocities you do not need a bearing. And actually, when you use a bearing for something like this the races will indent and slop will generate in the bearing due to the bearing only works in one small part of its total travel capacity. You see this in mountain bike rear suspension where the bearing spends its life only turning 6 degrees back and forth.

[lowrider]

The front system needs to move on two planes both sliding and rocking these will not perform that function.

[Jack Michaud]

Any reaction from the locals? I don't think most people will have seen anything like it.

I predict an all-time high for the count of "what is that?" type questions in liftline this year. And they won't just be asking about the plate, they'll think it's a whole new sport.

[lowrider]

Has anyone on a plate been detained for a safety inspection by the lifties or ski patrol yet?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Has anyone on a plate been detained for a safety inspection by the lifties or ski patrol yet?

Never, not in five plus years of riding plates systems of numerous configurations. Lots of curiosity, no issues.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

I predict an all-time high for the count of "what is that?" type questions in liftline this year. And they won't just be asking about the plate, they'll think it's a whole new sport.

Add 4 snow stix, split tip and tail in addition to plate systems and you will know what we have been dealing with for several years. Another thread for sure.

[Fleaman]

thanks for the info guys. I was wondering why no bearings were used also.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

thanks for the info guys. I was wondering why no bearings were used also.

In some of the early plate systems we found that the friction is a good thing.
Not so much with the pivot systems.

Bryan

[Mr.E]

So how are these influencing choices in boot stiffness (or are they)?

[Jack Michaud]

what about stance set-up? I imagine without a board flexing under your feet, your stance feels wider? will I need a new set of cants?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

what about stance set-up? I imagine without a board flexing under your feet, your stance feels wider? will I need a new set of cants?

Good point Jack. I would say maybe.

Maybe it would help get your knees out of that old school tucked position too?

[Jack Michaud]

I did spread out my stance a bit especially on the Burner primarily cuz I could. Nice to have a bit more leverage over that plank. I pushed my stance out .5 to .75 over what I normally ride on everything that I rode with a plate. I don't think its necessary but it felt like the thing to do after the first few runs on a plate. Felt more comfortable too me.

Think Snow!

Huh? I would think the sensation would be the opposite - that you would be tempted to either narrow your stance or increase cant/lift on a plate. Without a plate, when the board bends, your feet angle towards each other, bringing your knees closer. That won't happen on a plate, so I'd think you would feel like your stance is suddenly too wide....?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

don't think about it so much Jack, plenty of snow out here, grab a flight next week and come on out and see what its all about.

Says the single guy that lives in snow mecca to the family man on the ice coast with little ones

All we can do is THINK ABOUT it dude!!

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

2-3' in the next storm (this week and weekend)

Meanwhile it is working 10 hour days, followed by working at home, followed by working on my days off , you get the idea.

Waiting patiently. Although I would love to ditch everything to join you for a CO pow session followed by a couple weeks of "Carve-O-Rama".

Enjoy!

[Boarder_Ted]

what about stance set-up? I imagine without a board flexing under your feet, your stance feels wider? will I need a new set of cants?

Jack, it's funny but I was thinking the same thing. When I mounted up my (home-built) plate, my stance was about 1/2" narrower than normal. I just kept thinking the same as you, that the plate will remain flat so my legs won't be coming together as much. Hmm. We'll have to see if Snowman is right. I gotta say, I agree with him on mounting bindings toward the nose on metal boards. I found the exact same thing by trial and error. Time will tell. Now snow, dammit.

[Jack Michaud]

You remain much more "static" when on a plate and a wider stance is a more stable stance so if its comfortable why not spread it out.

I agree a wider stance is more stable, but I can't fathom it becoming more comfortable when the platform no longer bends. Guess I'll wait and see, but that makes no sense. I can imagine maybe it becomes more comfortable due to the fact that the feet are experiencing a lot less jarring.

The Swoard guys advocate flat feet (no cants/lifts) and they rationalize it by the fact that the board bends, thereby tilting your feet towards each other. That's not going to be true for them anymore on a plate.

Thanks for the offer... tempting! NGH though.

[Jack Michaud]

Dude I have been promoting wider stances here since day one. It's funny to me how some people will refuse to accept "simple geometry" - love that term.
Note that asked if I would need new cants, not if I would need to narrow my stance.

[kieran]

ridicule and harrasment from my Colorado riding buddies broke my will and I conformed

Peer pressured, you? Wuss.

[RCrobar]

Huh? I would think the sensation would be the opposite - that you would be tempted to either narrow your stance or increase cant/lift on a plate. Without a plate, when the board bends, your feet angle towards each other, bringing your knees closer. That won't happen on a plate, so I'd think you would feel like your stance is suddenly too wide....?

Hey Jack, interesting discussion.

I understand your reasoning, but I think the oversight you are making is that you are assuming nothing in the plate, binding, boot interface is able to move.

Boot binding interface(s), from flexy F2's to Sidewinders to TD3 stepin's have a certain degree of controlled movement. IMHO this engineered flex will negate a need to change your stance in any big way. I have also read that both Donek and Apex worked to find the right balance between stiffness and flexibility for their plate systems, implying to me that the plates are not 100% flat 100% of the time.

I would further speculate that the plate allows a rider to go faster more often. This is turn will result in a wider stance that creates a wider stronger base of support to compensate for the increase in rider speed.

Cheers
Rob

[Jack Michaud]

Well I think you know I don't like a lot of binding flex. As for the flex of the plate, my understanding was that they are trying to eliminate it.

[lowrider]

A plate will negate certain input from a rider, it will also negate some sensation the rider feels from the board. I think most assumptions about plates and what they can do for you are only assumtions based on the actual plate you get to ride. The single most important thing to remember about a plate on any board is it changes everything you once knew about a particular board. And with so many options now available the variables are going to be difficult to separate and allow one to analyse precisely what inputs or feedback is responsible for a difference you either feel or think you feel. As a side note, my peddle plates (2) are finished and one has a willing victim (tester). It will allow the comparison of three functions . It is a regular plate, it is a plate that can hinge in the middle,and it is a hinged plate that can swivel in the middle to allow peddling. If the tester is willing to post and report thats great but it's up to him. I sent him the plate because he admitted in public he was a peddler,aren't we all to some degree? I'm willing to argue Jacks point about wider stance on a plate to the degree that a plate smooths your ride so much that that the actual need for a riders stance to challenge rough conditions is reduced by the effect of the plate. but a wider stance is always more stable and more comfortable as well. The preference to position your stance closer to the nose on metal boards is an interesting one since the ability to stuff the nose of the board is one i felt a few times in sloppy or deep firm snow.Still not sure if boards need to get softer in the nose for plates or thinner in the middle any ideas anyone ?

[queequeg]

Still not sure if boards need to get softer in the nose for plates or thinner in the middle any ideas anyone ?

My understanding (though I have yet to get on a plate) is that plates perform somewhat of a force multiplier on the front foot and that they tend to make the a board seem softer in the front than it would be without the plate. I would imagine you'w want the decks to be somewhat stiffer in the shovel.

[RCrobar]

Well I think you know I don't like a lot of binding flex.

This is a very good point Jack.

It is no secret that each riders' boot-binding set up is going to have a range of preferred set up options, from very stiff to very flexible. You are after no flex I prefer a lot, resulting in different conclusions. Seems to me that this makes it possible for more than one truth with regards to cants and stance width.

Cheers
Rob

[Apex Insider]

I will add my 2 cents about plate flex. I think there is some misconception floating around the community that binding interfaces are stiff planks that don't flex at all. Here's what we found:

During development, once we settled on a basic design (after 12 prototypes), we offered three different flex variations to the Canadian team - firm, medium, soft. Sorry that these are rather arbitrary and loose descriptions of flex. Somewhere we have real data from deflection gauges but I am too lazy to go find it.

The firm (which still flexed a bit) was immediately rejected by the team members. The ride was squirrelly and uncomfortable. Eventually, everyone on the National Team ended up on a medium flex which is why that is the only variation we now offer. Mark Fawcett said it best when he told me that you need some flex for the ride to be "user friendly". Perhaps as lowrider suggests, there was a loss of feel with a really stiff setup.

What we found is that all computer modelling and bench testing in the world wasn't worth squat. It was all about the feel on the snow. Absolutely nothing replaced on-snow testing and we only came up with the right layup and the right core profile only after many, many hours on snow.

Maybe some guys can adjust to a super-stiff plate but our real world experience was that even the best riders in the world couldn't or wouldn't race on one.

queequeg: you are bang on with that assessment. Kessler is doing just that and I'm pretty sure Bruce is as well.