Sequence plate and to much tip pressure

[TNh2oskier]

Switched to the sequence plate and now my strada has a to much tip pressure at the exit of the turn. What are my options to reduce the tip pressure?

[A_B]

Shorten the length, increase depth, fin forward, or bindings back.

[TNh2oskier]

Thanks AB!

[SkiJay]

@TNh2oskier‌ I've had this exact conversation with Matt Rini, and he would tell you to remove the sliding spacers at both ends of the Sequence and bolt it firmly to the ski.

[A_B]

@SkiJay‌ wouldn't you want the ski to flex as designed and then adjust the fin? What if your screws get loose in a round?

 

[SkiJay]

@AB‌ You absolutely DO want the ski to flex as designed, so it depends on the ski. When I put the Sequence plate on my Nano One and XT, factory spec was the best setup I tried. I put the full-floating Sequence on my new Helix, and was chasing tip-grab issues with setups for a couple of weeks. Finally I tried the double plates bolted down and immediately found the Helix magic.

 

I put this experience down to Goode layups evolving around Interlock and D3 layups evolving around double plates. D3's Paul Crawford confirmed specifically that D3's take double plates into account with their layups.

 

I then asked Matt Rini for his thoughts on this subject, and he said he "always bolts down the Sequence on all skis or there is too much tip pressure," and Matt works with the best Sequence skiers on the planet.

 

To me, however, "always" is a big word. Goodes need the bindings to flex; plus the Sequence provides other options. You can let the ski flex to the max for a light smooth skier on a plus size ski. You can choose to have more or less flex under each foot by bolting down one end and using the floating inserts in the other end of the Sequence. And a bolted down Sequence is stiffer than two separate plates bolted down. That's a lot of "flex"ibility!

 

You have a good point about screws coming loose in the middle of a round, but I've never felt bad about beating someone less prepared than me at a race.

[A_B]

Good reasoning, but I have wonder why they designed it to flex in front and then recommend not using it? I have been on 2 pretty stiff skis and use all the floating screws, and have played with slightly loose middle screws, but not worth the risk. Most use dual lock on a Goode, so I would assume the floating screws on a Sequence plate would be about the closest thing to G10 plate flex. My preference would be to lock it down and adjust the fin accordingly, seems much more reliable than counting on your screws to float the plate. I assume that they will catch or swell, or not work 100% of the time.

[SkiJay]

Having the middle screws bolted down as tight as they'll go doesn't change the flex of the Sequence at all if both ends are using the floating inserts; they just locate the plate with all of the flex being from that point forward and from that point back which equals the whole plate.

 

I hear what you are saying about locking it down and adjusting the fin @AB, but the fin cannot compensate for soft flex issues. When flex is too soft, if you don't load the ski consistently into each turn, you will get an inconsistent amount of dynamic rocker (amount of rocker under load) and turning radius from the ski which is bad for consistency, balance, and confidence. Even worse, this dynamic rocker builds exponentially, amplifying it's own problem, i.e. the more load you put on the ski, the more it flexes; the more it flexes, the harder it turns; the harder it turns, the more load gets put on it, the more load gets put on it, the more it flexes . . . etc. until you crush into your suddenly over-turning ski.

 

Unfortunately, there is very little you can do with a fin to compensate for the problems associated with too much flex, and these "fixes" would be Band-aides at best, seeking to mask a significant structural problem--not the kind of setup most likely to produce PBs.