# Canted VS Flat footbeds... Discus



## deagol

I am a believer in canting, but have not used it in years, simply because it isn't that easy to find anymore (or at least I have not spent the time looking). Only used it on the back foot.


----------



## Brewtown

Last year I tried the K2 Company and I thought it made things a bit easier on the knees. Could have just been the harshmellow dampening though, I also switched to some Remind insoles last season so that could have played a part as well. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has something like the 390 bosses with different canting options where you can do more of a direct comparison.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

I used cants for several years in the 90s, than stopped because of availability and bulkyness. Back then, did not use them for comfort reasons but because they added a LOT of power to my riding, and avoided toe and heel drag. I went back to it in 2013 when I saw that Ride El Hefe bindings came with 3 different angled footbeds (2.5°, 4.5° and 5°) that allowed me to experiment with different combos. Ended up buying the 2014 and 2015 versions (I always have several setups mounted) but these came with only 2 sets of cantbeds (2.5° and 4.5°, they dumped the 5 °). One of the best things I did for my old fucked up knees! 

Almost never use the 2.5° ones. Always the 4.5°, with the exception of one type of board where I use a 5° on the back foot.


----------



## deagol

back "in the day", the canting wedges (Burton, at least) canted the entire binding, with the baseplate mounting to it and the wedge mounting to the board. Now I see the new solution is just to put a footbed in the baseplate that would cant the boot in the binding.. 

I have never tried this option. Seems that if you canted the boot too much, then eventually you might have a situation where the back of your boot doesn't contact the high-back as much as you might want it to. Of course, this is just me speculating at this point, but I do wish there was a universally available canting option that I could experiment with.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

deagol said:


> back "in the day", the canting wedges (Burton, at least) canted the entire binding, with the baseplate mounting to it and the wedge mounting to the board. Now I see the new solution is just to put a footbed in the baseplate that would cant the boot in the binding..
> 
> I have never tried this option. Seems that if you canted the boot too much, then eventually you might have a situation where the back of your boot doesn't contact the high-back as much as you might want it to. Of course, this is just me speculating at this point, but I do with there was a universally available canting option that I could experiment with.


Not enough canting on the ones I have to make that a real problem for me. Plus they are made of foam, so angle ends up being a bit less then labelled since the outside edge is way thicker and compresses more than the inside one, particularly on the 4.5° and 5° ones.


----------



## F1EA

Canting: good.
Flat: bad.

/thread



Nah anyways... I love canting. Hard canting is best, but even Autocant provides noticeable relief on the knees. And more power to ollies and presses.

Won't buy uncanted bindings anymore.

Try this: stand on your home floor with sb boots on. Mimic a wide riding stance with a slight angle to your feet (ie canting). Now purposedly make your feet totally flat with the same stance... Which feels better?

Some people will say canting makes no difference. I say... "Ok sure". And use my canted bindings.


----------



## deagol

plus, it made it easier to ride like Craig Kelly...


----------



## Mig Fullbag

F1EA said:


> Hard canting is best,
> 
> Won't buy uncanted bindings anymore.
> 
> Some people will say canting makes no difference. I say... "Ok sure". And use my canted bindings.


My thoughts exactly.

And to add on the hard canting, the absolute best I have tried is Lofo's Intracant system that was on the Sims X-Wedge. It will soon be on his own boards from what I heard. I was not a firm believer at first of integrating the wedging into the board, but once I tried it I was convinced. Not only is it ergonomically good for your body, but the power transmission to the edges and the fact that the board flexes more symetrically toeside and heelside makes for a fantastic feel. It is pretty cool to have your heelside turns feel more like you toesides.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

deagol said:


> plus, it made it easier to ride like Craig Kelly...


Definitely my biggest influence. I still ride a similar stance as him, as far as angles and width goes. But the smoothest and most perfect style ever, that I don't have...


----------



## linvillegorge

The only canting that I've tried is in bindings with a canted footbed. It didn't really make a difference for me. I can take it or leave it.


----------



## deagol

Mig Fullbag said:


> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> And to add on the hard canting, the absolute best I have tried is Lofo's Intracant system that was on the Sims X-Wedge. It will soon be on his own boards from what I heard. I was not a firm believer at first of integrating the wedging into the board, but once I tried it I was convinced. Not only is it ergonomically good for your body, but the power transmission to the edges and the fact that the board flexes more symetrically toeside and heelside makes for a fantastic feel. It is pretty cool to have your heelside turns feel more like you toesides.


are you listening, Sims ?

:deadhorse:


----------



## linvillegorge

I agree that the concept of canting makes sense on paper, but I think the way it's being done right now with just a couple of degrees built into the footbed of a binding, it's just not enough to make a difference. At least not for me and I rock a pretty wide stance and have a history of knee issues. I'm pretty much the poster child of the canting movement. If the entire binding was canted either through the build of the binding or a system like the x-wedge and it was more than the 2.5 degrees or whatever that is the norm right now, then I'd like to try it out.

I'm gonna be honest, but IMO the way canting is done right now it's 99% about marketing. They put a bit of canting in the footbed and market it and plant that seed in your head and then you hop on and say, "Wow! That's amazing! What a huge difference!" Meanwhile, the guy skeptical on canting hops on and says, "Meh, I didn't really notice a difference." That's a win for the binding companies. You've won fans from one group of people while avoided turning off another group.


----------



## deagol

I agree with you about just doing it via the footbed...

"real" canting makes a difference on paper and more importantly on snow. Wish we had some real options. I won't bother with just footbed canting.


----------



## SoCalSoul

I love canting on my bindings.
I could tell a huge difference on my Diodes from the stock flat beds (which are pretty damn thin) and the cantbeds I replaced them with.

I'm modifying the stock diode beds to add canting on my NOW Selects. Hope NOW comes out with canting soon.


----------



## ekb18c

I had knee pains with bindings that didn't have canted footbed. After trying burton reflex binding my knee felt better but still had a little discomfort. 

Then I tried binding with actual canting and I have no more discomfort of any sorts. So for my knee, I def will never go back to non canted bindings again.


----------



## Motogp990

The only canted bindings I've rode are Ride Capo (not sure if burton cartel autocant, counts).
I couldn't notice that much of a difference with my non-canted bindings, however I didn't really like the Capo's in general. 

Not sure if it was the canting I didn't like, however I didn't like how thick the footbed itself was. To plush for my liking, I prefer a much thinner, less padded footbed.

That being said, txb0115, it seems like you're a bc rider / splitboarder. I was thinking about trying the Voile canted pucks on my split. The investment isn't too steep where I'd be upset if I didn't like them. Will give you some feedback if I do try them.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

linvillegorge said:


> I agree that the concept of canting makes sense on paper, but I think the way it's being done right now with just a couple of degrees built into the footbed of a binding, it's just not enough to make a difference. At least not for me and I rock a pretty wide stance and have a history of knee issues. I'm pretty much the poster child of the canting movement. If the entire binding was canted either through the build of the binding or a system like the x-wedge and it was more than the 2.5 degrees or whatever that is the norm right now, then I'd like to try it out.


You are completely right about this, as far as I am concerned. 

I got to experiment quite a bit with the X-Wedge. It was the most effective when I used it with the addition of a 2.5° cantbed in my bindings. So closer to 5° total.




linvillegorge said:


> I'm gonna be honest, but IMO the way canting is done right now it's 99% about marketing. They put a bit of canting in the footbed and market it and plant that seed in your head and then you hop on and say, "Wow! That's amazing! What a huge difference!" Meanwhile, the guy skeptical on canting hops on and says, "Meh, I didn't really notice a difference." That's a win for the binding companies. You've won fans from one group of people while avoided turning off another group.


You are completely wrong about this, as far as I am concerned. 

I could not give a shit about marketing or peer pressure. If I did, I would be riding twin tip centered boards with a duck stance for the last 20 years of my 36 years of snowboarding, even if it absolutely doesn't fit my needs. I ride what fits me, my style of riding, and what improves my experience on snow. If it's not available, I try to customize and adapt the closest thing available. Been doing it to bindings and boots forever. I was lucky enough through the years to completely design or have input on the boards I rode, and some bindings too.

I cannot speak for other cantbeds but the Ride ones. The higher angles (4.5° and 5°) do work. And work well enough in that binding type without the need for the entire binding to be canted. On bindings like the Now Drives, that would be a whole other story. Those would need to be completely canted, not just the footbeds. Are cantbeds the ideal solution? No. But they are the only thing out there for now, and some of them definitely work for me.

I could be wrong of course, but my guess is that you did not try any cantbeds over 3.5°, and did not try them for more than a few runs or a day. I have been experimenting with the Ride ones for over three winters (and a few more with custom ones in old Burton P1 bindings) and regularly switch to other flat bindings. The difference in comfort, performance, leg fatigue, and knee pain I feel is not due to marketing. I am not that stupid... 

If they were so bad and ineffective, I don't think Terje would have JG make him custom canted ones and shaped to fit his boot soles perfectly.


----------



## F1EA

linvillegorge said:


> I agree that the concept of canting makes sense on paper, but I think the way it's being done right now with just a couple of degrees built into the footbed of a binding, it's just not enough to make a difference. At least not for me and I rock a pretty wide stance and have a history of knee issues. I'm pretty much the poster child of the canting movement. If the entire binding was canted either through the build of the binding or a system like the x-wedge and it was more than the 2.5 degrees or whatever that is the norm right now, then I'd like to try it out.
> 
> I'm gonna be honest, but IMO the way canting is done right now it's 99% about marketing. They put a bit of canting in the footbed and market it and plant that seed in your head and then you hop on and say, "Wow! That's amazing! What a huge difference!" Meanwhile, the guy skeptical on canting hops on and says, "Meh, I didn't really notice a difference." That's a win for the binding companies. You've won fans from one group of people while avoided turning off another group.


You know... Inwas totally skeptical at first. When you try it just once, or just hop on a canted binding, it isn't immediately noticeable.

But when you spend a full day riding... and compare a day with canted vs a day without i DEFINITELY notice.

Also getting the boards to press. Flat takes more effort to skate-type pop... i can definitely get a better spring with canted. Same board. Just swaping bindings.


----------



## deagol

Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Sims made these plastic/rubber canting wedges that went between the board and the baseplate. They necessitated you using longer tap screws on the lifted edge. We used to ride them and would experiment with even doubling them up once. I don't know what degree they were canted to, but they definitely did make a difference. It was a more ergonomic way of riding. That wedge wasn't (obviously) the end solution, and I wish something like the old Burton aluminum wedge (that bolted to the board with the baseplate bolting to it) would come back. Probably not enough people realized what they could gain from this piece of equipment, so it never took off with the masses???


Not a big deal on a rockered board for that style of riding, probably, but awesome for free-riding and aggressive carving, and Alpine.

Edit: anyone want to start a Kickstarter campaign to bring them back??


----------



## linvillegorge

deagol said:


> Edit: anyone want to start a Kickstarter campaign to bring them back??


Hell, I could do it. I have a two good family friends who own machine shops. I'll talk to them and see what they can come up with. Need something that will be light, rigid, durable, and cost effective.

What type of price point do you think would work for something like this that people would actually go for?

I'm thinking anything over $40 would be too much. $40 may be too much.

I'll talk to them and see. The design and manufacture would be a breeze. It's all about getting the right material and the right price point while still taking a decent enough profit margin to make it worthwhile.


----------



## deagol

linvillegorge said:


> Hell, I could do it. I have a two good family friends who own machine shops. I'll talk to them and see what they can come up with. Need something that will be light, rigid, durable, and cost effective.
> 
> What type of price point do you think would work for something like this that people would actually go for?
> 
> I'm thinking anything over $40 would be too much. $40 may be too much.
> 
> I'll talk to them and see. The design and manufacture would be a breeze. It's all about getting the right material and the right price point while still taking a decent enough profit margin to make it worthwhile.


Damn, and a good question. I don't know much about marketing, so anything I say would be a shot in the dark. I would pay maybe up to $70 for one like the old Burton model. It was a block of aluminum with taps in it for the baseplate (wish I had a picture). Do you know the guy who owns Phantom Splitboards? He is up in Evergreen... I wonder if he could do it? Totally different product though, and he doesn't do anything related to softboots, as far as I am aware of. Many of the hard core split-boarders have sworn off all resort riding and only use hard boots...


----------



## Nivek

This is all variable too depending on the individuals preferences. For example, I ride different stance widths with a flat bed than a canted one. Fixed canting essentially forces a certain stance width per inseam length. I can't ride a canted footbed at my preferred stance width of 20.5". It's actually WORSE on my knees as the angle is too much and puts inward pressure on my knees. A canted footbed puts me at 21.5". My angles over the years have varied from 18/-15 to 9/-6. I have never felt a drastic difference in the feel with canting between angles, just stance width. It also depends on what you ride. If you're a jib kid riding a medium stiff camber deck it's going to take MORE effort to get a proper press because it takes that much more effort to get your center of gravity over one foot. With soft rocker they actually help against over pressing because it's harder to get your center of gravity over. Riding camber in pow is where I feel it hurt the most. I want to be able to get my back leg perpendicular to the deck, but canting actively fights that position again causing pressure on the inside of my knee. On top of that the footbed materials make a huge difference. I can't ride certain canted bindings on anything with camber because the foam is too stiff and I can't flatten it out when I need to shift my weight. 

Modern canting came about right around the same time your average rider was at a 23"-25"'stance and rocker was the new hot shit. Yeah, at that width canting makes a huge difference, it did for the original ticket decks too. From 20"-22" or on tradtional camber, depends on your body.


----------



## linvillegorge

deagol said:


> Damn, and a good question. I don't know much about marketing, so anything I say would be a shot in the dark. I would pay maybe up to $70 for one like the old Burton model. It was a block of aluminum with taps in it for the baseplate (wish I had a picture). Do you know the guy who owns Phantom Splitboards? He is up in Evergreen... I wonder if he could do it? Totally different product though, and he doesn't do anything related to softboots, as far as I am aware of. Many of the hard core split-boarders have sworn off all resort riding and only use hard boots...


No, I don't know him.

If I was going to look into this, I'd just go through my buddies to get some prototypes put together and then I'd probably look into plastic molding companies for the end product. I'm thinking some type of polymer would be the way to go to get the weight, rigidity, and price point needed to make a venture like this worthwhile.

I just wonder if there's truly enough demand out there to bother with it? I mean, how many people consider binding canting to be a make or break deal for them?


----------



## deagol

linvillegorge said:


> No, I don't know him.
> 
> If I was going to look into this, I'd just go through my buddies to get some prototypes put together and then I'd probably look into plastic molding companies for the end product. I'm thinking some type of polymer would be the way to go to get the weight, rigidity, and price point needed to make a venture like this worthwhile.
> 
> I just wonder if there's truly enough demand out there to bother with it? I mean, how many people consider binding canting to be a make or break deal for them?


Those are great questions and I sure don't know the answer to them.... 
I do agree with what Nivek wrote above and that it's not a freestyle thing, or powder either. To me, it suits my preference for normal (most common) riding conditions that I seek out. It may or may not have mass appeal. I would definitely be able to test something like this and give feedback if it ever came to that. Stranger things have succeeded, right?


----------



## Mig Fullbag

deagol said:


> Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Sims made these plastic/rubber canting wedges that went between the board and the baseplate. They necessitated you using longer tap screws on the lifted edge. We used to ride them and would experiment with even doubling them up once. I don't know what degree they were canted to, but they definitely did make a difference. It was a more ergonomic way of riding. That wedge wasn't (obviously) the end solution, and I wish something like the old Burton aluminum wedge (that bolted to the board with the baseplate bolting to it) would come back. Probably not enough people realized what they could gain from this piece of equipment, so it never took off with the masses???
> 
> 
> Not a big deal on a rockered board for that style of riding, probably, but awesome for free-riding and aggressive carving, and Alpine.
> 
> Edit: anyone want to start a Kickstarter campaign to bring them back??


Sims was the first to offer canting commercialy. The Burton ones that came in pairs were called the Powerplates. In addition to canting (the back one had more than the front), they also had toe lift on the front one and heel lift on the rear one to fit the positive angle stance on both feet. They lived up to their name. They added so much power to your turning. And added boot clearance from drag too. Lofo's integrated system with the board offers the same posibility. The more you angle your front binding the more toe lift you will get. If you put positive angle on the rear foot, you will get heel lift. if You go duck, you will get toe lift.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

linvillegorge said:


> No, I don't know him.
> 
> If I was going to look into this, I'd just go through my buddies to get some prototypes put together and then I'd probably look into plastic molding companies for the end product. I'm thinking some type of polymer would be the way to go to get the weight, rigidity, and price point needed to make a venture like this worthwhile.
> 
> I just wonder if there's truly enough demand out there to bother with it? I mean, how many people consider binding canting to be a make or break deal for them?


Check carefully before going to market with any type of hard canting system. You might be infringing on Lofo's patent. I had worked on something pretty unique but it was violating his patent. It covers way more than just the integration of wedges into the board.


----------



## taco tuesday

deagol said:


> Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Sims made these plastic/rubber canting wedges that went between the board and the baseplate. They necessitated you using longer tap screws on the lifted edge. We used to ride them and would experiment with even doubling them up once. I don't know what degree they were canted to, but they definitely did make a difference. It was a more ergonomic way of riding. That wedge wasn't (obviously) the end solution, and I wish something like the old Burton aluminum wedge (that bolted to the board with the baseplate bolting to it) would come back. Probably not enough people realized what they could gain from this piece of equipment, so it never took off with the masses???
> 
> 
> Not a big deal on a rockered board for that style of riding, probably, but awesome for free-riding and aggressive carving, and Alpine.
> 
> Edit: anyone want to start a Kickstarter campaign to bring them back??


Check these out. I have been thinking about trying them.
https://youtu.be/HEUJW5mAQpU


----------



## deagol

thanks, will take a look when I get home..

This whole thing may be way too much of a niche to be a market opportunity, but it is something a subset of riders might definitely be interested in.


----------



## Mig Fullbag

taco tuesday said:


> Check these out. I have been thinking about trying them.
> https://youtu.be/HEUJW5mAQpU


One of my local customers has them and is riding them on one of my boards. He offered to lend them to me for a try last winter, but I did not get around to it. Planning to do so at the start of this season. I can picture them being super fun on a carving setup for groomers, but not so much on an every day all conditions setup.


----------



## txb0115

Mig Fullbag said:


> One of my local customers has them and is riding them on one of my boards. He offered to lend them to me for a try last winter, but I did not get around to it. Planning to do so at the start of this season. I can picture them being super fun on a carving setup for groomers, but not so much on an every day all conditions setup.


Yea, those seem like a little too much to me... I used to ride Nidecker bindings back in the day ( late 90's early 00's ) and they had cant built in to the whole binding on the 800's.. it wasn't just a footbed the whole damn thing was canted and that is more of what I wish was available... But I might give the Burtons a try


----------



## deagol

watched the video, agree the system is pretty bulky. It would be nice if you could just mount your baseplates to the triangular piece, but the orange interface plate on top of it, underneath the baseplate, seems a bit much. I suppose the proof is in the pudding, though.. testing the system would be more valuable than just watching the video.

@ $200, they are pretty expensive, and they raise your binding WAY off the board. 

http://bomberonline.3dcartstores.com/Power-Plate-System-_p_181.html

I would definitely wanna demo something this expensive before committing.


----------



## Matty_B_Bop

Just because I'm curious, and playing devil's advocate:


If canting has x,y and z benefits, how come it is not the standard?


----------



## F1EA

Matty_B_Bop said:


> Just because I'm curious, and playing devil's advocate:
> 
> 
> If canting has x,y and z benefits, how come it is not the standard?


Humans. Misterious creatures we are.



Actually..... it's a combination of preference, anatomy, physical condition, etc etc etc
Some people may not get to ride a full long day on a big hill...... If these guys are pretty fit and their anatomy is alligned a certain way....... they won't care or even notice canting. If you have a fwd stance, i doubt canting would make any difference at all. Etc.


----------



## SGboarder

Matty_B_Bop said:


> Just because I'm curious, and playing devil's advocate:
> 
> 
> If canting has x,y and z benefits, how come it is not the standard?


Because some people perceive benefits from canting and others do not. Basic marketing says to have different products for each set and charge the people who are willing to pay for the feature (canting).


----------



## Mystery2many

Canting doesn't work for me. I've had the 3.0 wedgie in my ride bindings and autocant in my genesis and just were not as comfortable as flat. Kinda pissed me off because I wanted it to be awesome. I realized it has to do with the angulation of my legs/knees. On all my shoes, they wear down faster on the outside of the heel (not an extreme amount). So I assume I have some sort of bow but its not noticeable by sight or walking or running. When I widen my stance according to common physics my feet end up be perfectly flat. 

The point is that canting is definitely good for some and not good for others depending on how their legs are angled. I also agree with Nivek.


----------



## ekb18c

Anatomy of people's legs and stance width I guess is what differs for all.

Some people love it and some people don't notice the difference. 

Why can't we all just be the same?!?! :x


----------



## Mig Fullbag

F1EA said:


> If you have a fwd stance, i doubt canting would make any difference at all. Etc.


Quite the opposite. With a forward stance, in addition to canting, adding some toe lift on the front foot and some heel lift on the rear foot adds comfort and more power to your turns. On a board with an integrated wedge system like the Sims X-Wedge, the toe lift on your front foot increases with your angle. On the rear foot, the more you go positive angle (forward stance) increases your heel lift, and the more you go negative angle (duck) increases your toe lift. But like it's been said, in the end it is all personal preference and body type.


----------



## ItchEtrigR

I noticed it a bit on my Cartels, to me it just felt like I had slightly more cushioning. Knee wise it was still the same, my knee issues went away when I narrowed my stance and angles a bit.


----------



## deagol

I think I would be interested on a cant wedge for the back foot, but don't need (or want) the full setup as shown in that Power Plate video... 

Also agree with Mig Fullbag's post.


----------



## F1EA

Mig Fullbag said:


> Quite the opposite. With a forward stance, in addition to canting, adding some toe lift on the front foot and some heel lift on the rear foot adds comfort and more power to your turns. On a board with an integrated wedge system like the Sims X-Wedge, the toe lift on your front foot increases with your angle. On the rear foot, the more you go positive angle (forward stance) increases your heel lift, and the more you go negative angle (duck) increases your toe lift. But like it's been said, in the end it is all personal preference and body type.


Hmm this is a head scratcher. But since I dont ride a fwd i guess I cant relate.

But definitely, everyone has a different anatomy, riding style, fitness etc.


----------



## jtg

deagol said:


> watched the video, agree the system is pretty bulky. It would be nice if you could just mount your baseplates to the triangular piece, but the orange interface plate on top of it, underneath the baseplate, seems a bit much. I suppose the proof is in the pudding, though.. testing the system would be more valuable than just watching the video.
> 
> @ $200, they are pretty expensive, and they raise your binding WAY off the board.
> 
> Power Plate System
> 
> I would definitely wanna demo something this expensive before committing.


I've had my eye on those, but for a different reason...actually for their intended purpose. They look a little extreme though.


----------

