New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

lifter plates

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm curious what people think about lifter plates. What do you say when a student asks 'how high is good' or 'why do you need them'?

I hear the lateral leverage thing all the time - but I don't see it. I really don't have any trouble putting a ski on edge. Your legs provide a huge amount of leverage - I don't thing a few more centimeters is going to have any real impact on 'lateral leverage'? Plus the lifter increases the the distance your CM needs to travel to create the same edge angles. I don't think lateral leverage alone would be worth the trade off.

The other one I hear is "because I boot out" - the idea here is that the skier is creating extreme angles - so much that the boot touches the snow. The lifter allows for the widge part of the boot to gain more 'clearance' over the snow. I've never seen that happen - just hear lots of stories.

In my humble opinion - lifters are important in the for/aft leverage plain. Your fore/aft pressure control is increased and the extra leverage allows you to move in a smaller zone. Allowing you to stay closer to center at all times.
post #2 of 27
First off welcome to Epic ski. I still find it interesting that here in the middle of the summer we are still attracting lots of new members.
It's kind of interesting that you mention you "don't see" how those few CM or even MM make a difference. A lot has to do with how "aware" you are about your skiing and at what level you are skiing at. Just from experience they do make a difference. but you pointed out the disadvange about how it takes longer to get from one edge to the other. putting a lifter plate will make it take longer to switch edges. It will be a very small amount but at higher levels of skiing it will be noticable. It's almost like a typewriter mechanic can almost measure .1 MM of movement in a print head and make the adjustment by feel but you sure can't measure it with any gauges very easily. or the difference a race car driver will feel between brand new tires and ones that have been driven for just a few laps. I don't think I would be able to tell the difference but subtle things give certain feedback/leverage.

As far as booting out a lot will depend on how extreme of an edge angle you get and also how wide the waist of your skis are. If your skis are as wide as your boots, there is very little chance of a "boot out" but if your skis are very skinny under foot you can see how a boot out will happen at a pretty low edge angle. I have booted out on my Salomon prolink equipe 3s skis but never on my X Scream Series. when I watch some of those racers however I can see how they might boot out very easily.
post #3 of 27
It will be intersting where this goes. There is huge variance out there of what people are on. Body type makes a differece, skiing style, terrain etc.. I have found I like being up of the ski but any more than 10-15 mm and I don't like the trade off with performance and versatility of the ski. I am interested in what others feel is a good height for them.
post #4 of 27
>>I hear the lateral leverage thing all the time - but I don't see it. I really don't have any trouble putting a ski on edge. Your legs provide a huge amount of leverage - I don't thing a few more centimeters is going to have any real impact on 'lateral leverage'? Plus the lifter increases the the distance your CM needs to travel to create the same edge angles<<

Interesting thoughts. I am going to speak of my experiences before engaging in theoretical conjecture.

Lifters of only a few cm create a big difference for me. I immediately felt an increased amount of edge hold and smaller amount of movement required to get it. They changes things so much my skis felt 'nervous' at first as very small moves created effects. As far as recreational skiers go, I don't think they NEED lifters, but they can be useful.

Maybe PM can shed some light on the effects of increased leverage over edges. I have a suspicion leverage creates more pressure to the edges or something like least that it how it feels to me. Like I don't need as much edge angle to get the same hold out of a lower, though identical setup.

While the CM might need to move futher to create the same edge angles, 'mechanical advantage(use of term?)' may create a situation in which much lower edge angles achieve similar results.

Anyone have thoughts on lifter-to-skill-level considerations?
post #5 of 27
Ron LeMaster has written a couple of articles in TPS about this.
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree - lifter plates do make a big difference - I'm just saying that the reason isn't the one that everybody quotes.

Maybe I'm wrong - but have someone (about your weight) with one foot on each ski stand on your skis and try to tip them (on a hard surface). Try it with lifter plates - then without. Either case it is easy to tip the skis. It is because you've got lots of leverage....

Pierre eh,

I'm not a physics expert - but I don't understand how your ankle would be the lever arm - that might be true if you had the bottom of your foot glued to the ski without any boot - but any force you apply to your ski is through your boot - not the bottom of your foot. Maybe I don't understand what you are saying???


Maybe you get better control over the edges because of the increased distance? I've had the same experience as you - there is a point where it is too much.... I just don't know how to define it.

Nobody buys my fore-aft idea, huh? I was hoping Bob B. might respond.... I was trying to convince a friend of this idea and she quoted Bob's book - dohh...... (Bob, I just picked up your book on Amazon - I'm looking forward to reading it - I've really enjoyed reading your posts - great stuff. .
post #7 of 27
Lifter plates will be seen on all levels of ski's this season. Heighth will vary according to performance level of the ski, but the days of being stacked "to the heavens" are probably gone. The biggest change in lifters this season is with the integration of bindings designed to work specifically with the flex patterns of the particular ski allowing for a more even, or designed flex. I have seen signifigant changes in performance and stance of skiiers with the simple addition of plates. With the changing trend to shorter ski's, allowing shorter, or more specifically, cleaner arcs in the turns boot out is becoming more of a noticable factor. Putting the ski on edge creates more resistance agianst the snow aiding in the control of flexing and extending movements (pressure control). Any thoughts out there on this line of thinking?
post #8 of 27
Right ON Pierre! This is why you want a boot and footbed combo that lets your ankle and foot articulate and tip inside the boot... little toe to big toe, back and forth. Most footbeds have a "dead" arch support, and don't help you "spring" back to the little toe edge, for the release.

Lifters make the ski more tippy, and alignment of the skier becomes more critical. This can cause real problems for less skilled knock-kneed folks... Makes the ski hard to release. But it also tends to be an advantage for the "non-corrected" bowlegged skiers.

I have been experimenting with more of a slightly outside (bowlegged) alignment for myself on my skis with lifters, and it really helps, as I am knock-kneed. If I go to far to the outside, my knees get a little sore. Personally, I'm a mess alignment wise, very asymetrical.

Lifters are a LOT like changing the steering rate of a car... i.e. lock to lock. And if the skier has alignment issues to begin with , then not only will the canting amounts change some, but they will get veeeery fussy with the lifters, so much so that a skilled skier will notice the differance between 1/2 of a degree... Imagine going from a Taurus or a Camry to a "race prepped" Porsche, or even an open wheel F1 racer... twitchy and responsive. Which can be a very good thing, especially for radical carving and racing.

Boot out has happened to me, especially on my Elan RP's. I have a fat foot, and a fat boot... EE width, Nordica GP Vertech's. Booted out and crashed once in uniform, under the lift, and slid for forever. And of course, about 4 chairfuls of instructors saw this. Good thing the pitchers of beer I ordered for my visible sins were Coors.. and not expensive micro-brews... The gang cut me a little slack, thank goodness.

I'm a bootfitter and alignment guy, as well as an instructor... helping to fix skiers up, on AND off the hill. Imagine that.

Visit me here >>>SnoKarver

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by SnoKarver (edited August 02, 2001).]</FONT>
post #9 of 27
Kewl, Pierre, eh! I just finished the alignment course at Harb Ski Systems. Was absolutely... excellent. Filled in the holes in my knowledge, and changed some of my pre-conceived notions. As Ben Stein would say: Wow!

I am gonna mess with my own personal setup even more. If we have the opportunity, I would love to work with somebody like you, a looong time skier who keeps moving forward and getting better. You would get a lot out of the clinic I attended.

The biggest change for me is an objective series of measurements that give the information needed to make and properly post a footbed (some of which I was doing, but not enough), as well as making the arch flexibility "just right". The arch in a good foot bed will not only flex slightly when the foot is tipped to the big-toe-edge, but actually will spring back to it's original shape when going back to the little toe edge. These measurements give the information needed to make a footbed with the right amount of "sproing" in the footbed.

As always Pierre, I appreciate your posts and your knowledge...

Visit me here >>>SnoKarver

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by SnoKarver (edited August 02, 2001).]</FONT>
post #10 of 27
TRG- welcome to epic ski! good time to be here.
Pierre, excellent explanation there of the ankle! One thing I'm wondering about though is your comment:
>> You will notice that you can use your ankles a bit to tilt your boots sideways just a bit. Lifter plates increase this effect. This is one of the reasons boots are becomeing softer for extreme carving<<

It's my understanding that boots are becoming softer fore/aft yet still stiff laterally. Is this not so? Are you talking about the boot flexing laterally?

Otherwise... yes, I agree boot out is a real consideration. I was at a clinic last winter where there was a coach who had booted out and seriously injured his arm/shoulder. I've booted out running gates (had stock Marker lift-7mm?) and also with short 113cm psx skis. Both times the outside leg was fully extended with a high edge angle and the boot hit some clumps of snow. That's the thing- it's not like putting your ski on edge on a carpeted floor. There you'd need extreme edge angle before the boot hits. Since snow is rarely flat, the angle of booting out will be less.

Still, if one doesn't use high edge angles in their skiing you won't boot out. My mother for instance, will never, ever, boot out.

Besides the leverage issue, plates can add stability and make the ski less reactive and more stabile. I just skied on a pair of saloman's with their race plate which is aluminum bolted to the ski in two places with two pivot points on the plate. I found it gave me tremendous power/stability to go from firm snow to slushy, crunchy snow that had a base of rock solid ice. That was such a blast to not slow down one bit and yet have utter confidence that I'd go right through it. In fact I would go faster just for the hell of it.
post #11 of 27
Tho I can't really reply for someone else, I can say that you can use the ankle to edge the skis, and it is not because of the boot flexing laterally. I think Pierre's ankle stuff is excellent.

Go. Try it. Start your carve by edging with your ankle first. What this does is cause the leg to pressure against the boot, so whether the ankle actually moves or creates an angle is beside the point. Whether it does or not, it still has the effect.
post #12 of 27
Yea, the newerboots are stiffer laterally... and the measurements I mentioned above, go hand in hand with a series of excercises on the hill, along with just skiing, to help with the analysis. Can't do this stuff statically!

Visit me here &gt;&gt;&gt;SnoKarver
post #13 of 27
That's hilarious! I was just reading, and thought, "I know that is not what Bob believes!", only to notice a new post and your correction! On the surface, the increased lever distance would indicate an increase...forgeting about that ankle.
For the record, I drink a pot and a half before posting!
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
Pierre eh!,

Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas. I see what you are saying. Makes sense - your ankle deals with the fine tune stuff - the leg deals with large movements.


Thanks for the response... I'm not sure I understand your second post (about lifters decreasing fore-aft effect on the ski). How could lifters increase the lateral when the ankle is rasised - but not the fore-aft? Isn't it the same idea?

I'm surprised there isn't more talk about lateral movement around the cuff of the boot. In order to use your ankle to make the fine adjustments, you'd need the boot to allow your shin to move back and forth, right? I'm thinking if your boot held your ankle locked in line with your shin - you wouldn't be able to take advantage of the lifters....
post #15 of 27
Hey Bob, you wanna borrow my french press?

Good to see you back...

Visit me here &gt;&gt;&gt;SnoKarver
post #16 of 27
Thread Starter 
Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Hope I'm not beating this to death.

When I look at the picture on p. 160 of your book - and think about how forces on the boot would be transfered to the ski (independent of the ankle) - I would think the lifter would increase leverage of the boot in both directions.

If I took a boot - glued the bottom to a thin section of square plywood - put my foot in the boot - would it be easier to break the plywood with/or without the lifters (fore/aft). I think it is easier to think of it in extreme terms (like your diagram) - 12" or so....

I see what you are saying... but isn't it true for only the small movements of the ankle? Wouldn't the larger movements of the leg against the boot cuff have a larger impact on force delivered to the ski?
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
What I wrote didn't seem very clear - so I thought I'd take another shot. Keep in mind that all/any of this might be completely wrong... I'm just thinking out loud.

I think all forces applied to the ski go through the boot. There are two basic ways that you can apply fore/aft/lateral forces to the boot:

- via the bottom of your foot (small ankle generated)
- via the boot cuff/sides of the boot (large leg generated)

What happens to the bottom of the boot is the same as what happens to the ski. Increasing the distance of the bottom of the boot from the ski increases leverage in all directions.

The lever arm for forces applied to the bottom of your foot - is the distance from the bottom of you foot to the center of your ankle.

The lever arm for forces applied to the boot cuff/sides is more complicated - but is is roughly the distance from the center of your ankle to you knee.

I'm suggesting that there are two pivot points in both the fore/aft case AND the lateral case. I think it is easiest to think of how forces are applied to the boot independently from how they are applied to the ski.....

Sheesh... where is that guy PhysicsMan?

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by TRG (edited August 07, 2001).]</FONT>
post #18 of 27
I am indeed lurking and following all the good posts on this thread, but because of a crush at work, I haven't have the time to write a full explanation of what's going on.

However, let me try an ultra condensed version of what I see as the major effects & mechanisms of action involved in within-boot ankle movements and lifters.

1) IMHO, lifters do not act by any mechanism that involves a comparison of the length of the lever arm without the lifter to the lever arm with the lifter. Thus, I think all the PR stuff you occasionally see about lifters changing the torque about the knee or hip is bogus (in this limited context). The ratios involved in adding a few cm at most (the lifter) onto something (ie, a leg) that is of order a meter in length is just too close to unity to be significant.

2) One of the ways that lifters clearly help edging is the way shown in the picture in Ron LeMaster's book, "The Skiers Edge". When a ski is strongly edged on a hard surface, the snow pushes up on the ski only at the edge. Assuming that the ankle has some movement within the boot (see below), and that the boot cuff can move slightly side-to-side on the calf, then if the line of force goes on one side of the ankle, it will help the boot lay over even more. If the line of force goes on the other side of the ankle, it tends to make the boot lay over less. Lifters ensure that the line of force is always on the "right" side of the ankle to help edging. Look at Ron's book - its much clearer if you look at his diagram.

3) Lifters also help edging by reducing the amount of vertical rise the foot has to undergo to achieve a given edge angle.

Here's how this works. For simplicity, lets imagine a stationary skier on a flat patch of hardpack. (BTW, there is no problem in extending this argument to a moving skier on a slope, being subjected to centrifugal force). If your foot is flat on the ski with no lifter, then as you increase the edging angle from 0 to 90 degrees, the center of the bottom of your foot rises up by an amount equal to half the width of the ski - ie, it just traces out a quarter of a circle.

Now, for ease of visualization, imagine there is a tall lifter on the ski (say equal to the width of the ski), and trace out the path that the center of the top of the lifter (ie, the bottom of the foot) follows as you increase the edge angle in this case. If the lifter is tall enough, this point starts to rise, but never rises as much as it did when there was no lifter present. Mostly, its just moving sideways. Finally, as the edge angle gets even larger, this point actually can start coming back down towards the snow (if the lifter is tall enough).

Since (a) work expended = force times the distance moved in the direction opposite to the applied force, (b) since lifters reduce the mount of vertical movement needed to get the ski up on edge, and (c) the skier's weight is pressing in the direction opposite to the vertical rise, then the skier has to expend less energy to achieve a significant edge angle using a lifter.

Note - the mechanism that I described is the same thing that makes a fat ski more clumsy to edge - the foot has to rise more to achieve a given edge angle, and the skier has to do more work against gravity (and centrifugal force) to get it there.

4) Both of these effects (lifters helping the ankle flex in the correct direction, and lifters reducing the work needed to edge the ski) are very small at low, recreational / skidding angles, but get truly significant at high (ie, racing, supercarving) angles.

5) Recently, there was a great discussion of edging using one's ankles, and as I recall, Pierre and Roto gave some great descriptions of what they feel when they are doing this. On the other hand, my impression is that it still isn't clear to most people how small movements of a confined ankle could have any significant effects on edging.

Here's why "ankle edging" is indeed significant (note - there was a typo in this sentence which Pierre, eh! thankfully caught shortly after I posted this message, and which is now corrected):

Imagine the bottom of your foot is made of steel - absolutely flat on the bottom, and no give whatsoever.

Lets also imagine that your footbed is equally hard and flat. Then, if you angle your foot at the ankle ever so slightly, either the inboard or outboard side of the bottom of your foot will contact the boot, and the rest of the (steel) foot will not be in contact with the boot. Thus, by a tiny change in ankle angle (just a fraction of a degree), you change the point where you are pressing down on your boot by the width of your foot - many cm.

Now - on hardpack, the snow is always pushing up on an edged ski right at its edge. From the above discussion, you can see that by moving your ankle slightly, you can either be pressing down right on top of the the edge that's on the snow, or else pressing down several cm away, above the outside edge. If you do the latter, you are applying a very large torque to the boot. This is eventually resisted by the pressure of the cuff on your calf, but there is some elasticity in both the cuff and your leg.

Doing some measurements on myself, I found that I could easily get +/- 1 cm of movement of the cuff. This corresponds to +/- 1.9 deg of movement (for a cuff 30 cm above the boot sole). This is definitely a noticeable change in edge angle.

You should note that if you are sitting down with the boot dangling, and you make changes in the angle of your ankle, you will not see the boot move by anywhere near this amount. This is the crux of the paradox. It only moves significantly if you are pressing down on the ski with 200 lbs above the outside edge, but the snow is pressing back up on the ski with 200 lbs on the inside edge.

Gotto go. Hope I didn't screw up any of the explanations, it was clear enough and not too terse.


Tom / PM

<FONT size="1">
[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited August 08, 2001).]</FONT><FONT size="1"><FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited August 09, 2001).]</FONT>
post #19 of 27
Pierre -

Oh, noooooo, nooooo - it happened - A typo in the worst possible place. The sentence,

"Here's why "ankle edging" is indeed insignificant:..." should read,

"Here's why "ankle edging" is indeed SIGNIFICANT:..."

I hope it is clear to everyone that this was a simple typo since the intent of my next several paragraphs was clearly to show that ankle edging is important, to give the exact reasons why, and to derive an estimate of the amount it can fine tune the overall edging.

Thank you very much for catching this error. I will go back and edit the post b4 it confuses more people.

This was a good lesson in being civil and "not going off half-cocked". I read your post and initially thought to myself, "...What the *&*@ is he thinking! Why, I'm just going to tell him to go back and read things more carefully". Well, then I decided that maybe I better go back myself and see where he might have gotten this idea. Then I found my typo. Whoops.

My only excuse is that I typed the whole thing in about 10 minutes, late at night, after a long day at work, simply wanting to respond to the previous poster.

In summary - One of the main points of my last post was that ankle edging is definitely significant. I'm TOTALLY agreeing with you, and, in fact, used your descriptions to come up with my analogy (the "flat hard foot on a flat hard footbed") for how this paradox could be resolved. I actually estimate that fine tuning edging with ankle movements contributes more like a couple of degrees, much larger than the the tenths of a degree that you mention.

With respect to its impact on skiing, I would go even further than you, and say that a total change in edging of +/- 2 deg (ie, 4 deg total) could noticeably change the turn radius, especially if the skier is near the threshold of carving, and ankle edging changes the turn from a carved to a skarved turn.

Thanks again for pointing out the typo,

Tom / PM

PS - After I fix the typo, do you think we should let this message and your last message stand or should we simply delete them? Will they just add noise and more stuff for people to wade through, or do they serve a function?
post #20 of 27
Bob -

OK - I'll let it stand as per your suggestion.

You know, I knew I was tired when I started writing the explanation and even consciously wondered, "should I wait?". Then I reread the TRG's statement, "Sheesh... where is that guy PhysicsMan?" and thought I better pipe up.

The nice thing about this forum is that compared to many other places, people here are civil, so you don't have to be all that worried about making a dumb boo-boo like I just did.

It certainly reinforces the need for the utmost clarity in technical writing when just two extra letters (ie, "insignificant" vs "significant") can totally obfuscate the meaning of a long message. Given the tome you just wrote, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here - grin.

Tom / PM
post #21 of 27
Bob -

Good points.

There is yet another reason why fore-aft moves are less effected by lifters than lateral moves.

In a lateral move (ie, edging), you are actually rotating the ski around a fore-aft axis which is the edge in contact with the snow. As I described in a recent post, a big lifter will minimize the amount of vertical movement that the skiers foot will have to make (against the combination of his weight and centrifugal force). Put in a lifter to reduce this vertical movement, and the skier feels the reduction in energy expenditure.

OTOH, with fore-aft movements of your CM, there is never any vertical movement involved. The ski never comes up off the ground (except for the extreme case Bob just mentioned). Put in a 2 inch high riser, and the ski still is always on the ground with absolutely no vertical movements as you move your CM fore and aft. Thus, there is no change in energy expenditure with and without the riser, and thus, the skier feels no change with and without lifter (at least due to this mechanism).

Finally, there is one more significant difference between fore-aft and lateral moves with respect to lifters.

As Pierre, Bob and I have now all argued, ankle edging also plays a major roll in how lifters work in the lateral direction. The argument is that the insertion of a lifter can change which side of the ankle the line of force exerted by the snow on the ski passes (when the ski is strongly edged).

In the fore-aft direction, this effect simply doesn't occur. The ski is ALWAYS pushing up on the skier at his boots. When he leans forward, this line of force will always be either directly under, or behind all of the important skeletal joints involved in this fore-aft motion. It will always try to make these joints bend forward more. The inclusion of a lifter just moves everything up and down, it never moves the position of the force on the skier, or changes the angle that the force vector goes through the skier (as it does in the lateral case). Therefore the lifter exerts no influence in foreward lean via any analogous mechanism to what is involved in ankle edging.

If the lifter is very large, or the tail of the ski is actually lifted off the ground (as Bob pointed out), then other mechanisms of action (eg, a simple, overall increase in lever arm) might then rise enough in significance to become noticeable in the fore-aft direction. However, for the majority of cases, I have to agree that most of the effect of lifters will be on edging, not fore-aft phenomena.



PS - Hey Bob, did you ever catch my response to your question, "why is this move important at the initiation of a turn, but not at the end". This was something we were talking about in the thread:

particularly, the messages posted by you and me on 7/23. I curious what you thought about centrifugal force subtracting from gravity at the start of a turn and adding together in the completion phase - ie, the stuff in "The Physics of Skiing" book. -- Tom
post #22 of 27
> "...There's a diagram in my book as well
> that illustrates the effects of gravity
> and centrifugal force through turns, and"

I must confess that altho I am very familiar with your book, have recommended it to MANY other people, and lust after it myself, I don't yet own a copy. This is about to be remedied as major hints have been dropped that one will appear on my birthday next month, and that I definitely shouldn't buy it for myself.

> "we've discussed this at length in the
> past--can't recall exactly which threads,
> but I'll let you know if I find them..."

Why am I not surprised to find that this was already discussed. Please let me know if you remember where this discussion occurred - I can't find it. When I wrote the reply to you 7/23/01, I actually did a search on this within the Epic forums and found nothing. I just did another bunch of searches on this topic, and again couldn't find the thread you are thinking of, just our same 7/23 messages.

> "...It affects our ability to carve the
> beginning of the turn, vs the necessity to
> be patient and wait until the forces
> align. We can't pressure skis (and carve)
> until there is force pulling OUT of the
> turn to resist! But then, we don't NEED to
> either--as long as the resultant force
> pulls us into the turn, we don't need to
> resist it ..."

Ahh ... given the above statement, then I think the key difference is simply in our assumptions.

When you say that "you can't carve until there is a force pulling out of the turn to resist", I believe you are implicitly assuming either a lower speed turn or a steep slope (or both). In that case, I totally agree with your conclusion and the skiing technique it directly implies.

OTOH, I was assuming that the skier is generating enough centrifugal force at all times (except the transitions) so that, there is always some outward component to the combined forces - ie, somebody doing fast, short radius turns on a low-angle hill. With my assumption, there is the possibility of carving throughout all parts of the turn. If this is the case, and one wants to keep the radius of the turn constant from initiation to end, then since the outward component of the net force (gravity plus centrifugal) will be less at initiation than at completion, and the edge angle of the ski to the snow is also likely to be less in the initiation phase than during the completion phase, THEN, the only way to keep the radius equally short during the initiation phase is to help the ski flex more during this part of the turn. The only way I know to do this is by a short interval of forward pressure - which was the crux of my argument in my 7/23 post.

Now, I'll be the first to say that the above technique will only be of real use in fairly contrived situations - ie, a demonstrator going out of their way to achieve linked turns of absolutely constant radius at constant speed. For normal free skiing and racing, I think that the take-home message is that if you are going fast enough into a turn initiation and you want to tighten it up without breaking out of your carve, then this is a way to do it.

Anyway, I'm glad to have found a group of people that is interested in technical analysis of skiing. It never ceases to amaze me that it requires analysis of this depth to fundamentally understand something as intuitive, graceful and effortless as swooping down the hill with a pair of boards strapped to your feet. That's certainly not what I was thinking when I was standing on top of that impossibly steep beginner's hill thirty years ago - grin.


Tom / PM
post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 
Thanks - I think I get it - it has been a long time since taking any physics classes - so my brain is a little rusty. Sorry if I dragged it down into the dirt.

Bob - got your book the other day... I got a kick out of reading the section on fore/aft balance.... great example (truck).
post #24 of 27
Not at all - It got me thinking precisely about all of these phenomena. Its definitely not as simple as one would first believe.

post #25 of 27
Bob -

Great - I'll take a look.

Tom / PM
post #26 of 27
with contempory bindings and the new integrated ski/binding combinations riser plates become an unnecessary add on for even expert or advanced skiers.

only a few here race coaches, psia III instructors and the like might need them. the skier who even skis 60 days + can do without additional riser.

the additional height that came with the new flex bindings seven years ago or so weren't needed with traditional shaped skis. it had the lift because of the device itself. it was the coming of the shaped ski that skiers saw the benefit of the extra lift.

we don't really need riser plates and eventually new materials with the same strength of our current materials will lower the height of the ski for weight purposes.

people will blow out their knees when too high.
post #27 of 27
poh- I think it depends what you're going to do if you "need" lift or plates. If you ski with high edge angle then you need lift. Most will not need more than the stock 10mm or so. For real high angles you need more though. Boot out can be very dangerous. If you love high speed criusing then a plate with damping could really rock your world.
Do you "need" that? Problably not, but do we "need" shaped skis? We got by o.k. without. Of course now we're all junkies...

Any thoughts on plates for juniors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching