Boot cuff/ramp angles

[Climber Joe]

Are there any comprehensive charts for looking these stats up?

I’m after the most upright cuff I can find in a 130/140 flex boot. I like the out of the box fit of Lange, Dalbello DRS, Nordica, and Fischer, but I don’t know which ones are the most upright.

Also is the cuff angle based off the boot sole or the ramp angle?

[rod9301]

Lange is pretty upright, i think 11 degrees

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[gaijin]

This is a very needed thread.

All of you should post everything you know right now and forever.

I’m not being facetious.

Nobody talks about this and everyone should.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mntlion]

best to try them all on.

Even if this WAS all published date it depends on what the boot size is for the ramp angle, the cuff is NOT a straightline up the back of the boot, so it depends on where your leg does/doesn't get begger.

Also most shops can make changes to a boot board angle (adding shim or grinding thinner) as well as changes to a rear cuff (adding a shim, or heating/flairing the cuff back more upright)

If you buy on the angles, then you might be scarificing the fit elsewhere as well?


Sorry, it WOULD be nice to see it all, but its NOT a fixed target you are aiming for. Best to get someone to help you at a good shop make the best boot for you.

[wasatchback]

If you think flex ratings aren’t a reliable number, published ramp angle and forward lean numbers might be worse.

There’s a bunch of different ways to measure it and everyone does it differently.

Why might I ask are you looking for the most upright boot?

[ski whore]

Here’s my question, how do you get used to modern forward lean/ramp when you love the old school feel of a full tilt? I would love to try another boot but so freaked out that I’d feel like I’m standing straight up.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[yeahman]

One thing I've found about Dalbello boots is that the forward lean of the cuff is greater on the boots that don't have a walk mode. Their walk-mode boots have a more upright cuff, and there's no way to use one of their shims to increase the lean (like you can do on the boots without walk mode). It's only by a couple degrees difference, but noticeable to me. I tried last year to modify a pair of Dalbellos that have walk mode so that the cuff would have more forward lean, but the method I tried failed. I know it can be done, I just had no idea what I was doing. Maybe I'll take them to a shop.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Everything is too upright now. It's like old school.

[Shorty_J]

Everyone has different preferences and are sensitive to different things, but I went through this a few years ago (at a time when I was largely ignorant to the effects of forward lean, until I skied em of course), and for me it just took some time to get used to. Now if I was a boot tester and was constantly swapping between boots I'm sure I would notice the differences more, but as I buy a boot, get used to it, and ski it, yah, it just took a few days. It did effect my mount preferences a bit though (more upright meant I could slide the binders forward a bit as tip dive was less of a concern at the original mount I was using with the old boot).
More important for me is having a resort and touring boot with similar characteristics so when i do swap between, they feel similar.

My potentially unhelpful 2 cents.

I agree that similarity between all your equipment is the most important, but I do think certain physiologies prefer certain setups.

It's worth geeking out on, IMO.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[SoVT Joey]

Everything is too upright now. It's like old school.

you ski a gripwalk sole and pivots?

put on a full tilt and click into some marker alpine clamps.

[Shorty_J]

you ski a gripwalk sole and pivots?

put on a full tilt and click into some marker alpine clamps.

Is there somewhere in between?

How about Mach 1s and Attacks?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[SoVT Joey]

Is there somewhere in between?

How about Mach 1s and Attacks?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

there are tons in between. But ramp needs to be found first. That’s your base line. Athletic forward stance, ankle slightly flexed, laterally flat. You don’t want to be flexing the boot to have to stand comfortably and your ankle should have as much ROM as possible. That’s why I’m am utterly and completely against any heel shims inside of the boot. It cuts the ROM, pre flex’s the ankle, and takes away some of the input/rebound power transfer. If you are standing up right to begin with and add a flat delta, it will make the upright feeling a million times worse. Also, if you can’t get out over the tips, you probably aren’t skiing, that’s skidding or slarving or just plain sucking.

machs and attacks are a little aggressive in the ramp and delta for some. But I would be right at home in that setup. What makes you think you want less? Is it a comfort thing? Or a turn thing?

[Shorty_J]

there are tons in between. But ramp needs to be found first. That’s your base line. Athletic forward stance, ankle slightly flexed, laterally flat. You don’t want to be flexing the boot to have to stand comfortably and your ankle should have as much ROM as possible. That’s why I’m am utterly and completely against any heel shims inside of the boot. It cuts the ROM, pre flex’s the ankle, and takes away some of the input/rebound power transfer. If you are standing up right to begin with and add a flat delta, it will make the upright feeling a million times worse. Also, if you can’t get out over the tips, you probably aren’t skiing, that’s skidding or slarving or just plain sucking.

machs and attacks are a little aggressive in the ramp and delta for some. But I would be right at home in that setup. What makes you think you want less? Is it a comfort thing? Or a turn thing?

I don't think I want less ramp but I think attacks are pretty neutral in an alpine sole, no? And Mach 1 are fairly upright?

I actually feel more dialed in my gear than I ever have... I think it's mostly the boots (fit is amazing) and the squats. But I'm always trying to improve so I think about stuff.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

To elaborate.... I just feel like everything feels more natural this year that last. And I don't treat myself well.

I really think it's the boots more than anything.

Even changing to skis with different ramp angles on the bindings doesn't throw me.... I think I love my boots.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[SoVT Joey]

https://www.wildsnow.com/10733/get-u...for-your-ramp/

https://www.thepisteoffice.com/index...g-delta-angles

https://www.skitalk.com/threads/forw...g-delta.24467/

reading that will help understand things a lot more. Though I can’t stand that he writes from some generalization that everyone needs toe shims. He’s completely wrong. But the basis and nerdy-ness is spot on and headed in the right direction. It can all be applied to alpine bindings and boots as well. Just take calipers and starting measuring spaces between top sheets and soles of boots and see what you find, especially between skis you like and skis you can’t get along with.

I know my magic number is somewhere around 15mm higher in the heel of my binding and that’s based on a Lange RS ramp.

and no. Your attacks are fairly delta heavy and the mach has a decent but not overly aggressive ramp. The cuff is a little more upright, but the ramp angle of the boot board is still decently sloped.

and all of the ramp angles will change with din sole to gripwalk soles as well, as the sole meets the binding interface in a different position.

I did spend like $30 in international fees talking to SpyderJon on the phone. That guy is a wealth of information.

[SoVT Joey]

I wonder if this is due to the beveled GW sole sitting more upright in the binding?!? Find my Lupos with a spoiler ski similarly to my Krypton’s without, I think…it’s been a few months.

its more then likely due to end use. The walkmode boots are more upright to help with walking uphill. And non walkmode will be more forward.

***MOST IMPORTANTLY CUFF ANGLE IS NOT RAMP ANGLE AND RAMP ANGLE IS NOT CUFF ANGLE AND THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS COMPLETELY***


yeahman, sylvan is right. I’d try a spoiler

[onenerdykid]

There are some boots with more forward lean (or the opportunity to move the cuff into more forward lean, not just add liner spoilers). Lots of Atomic's boots have more to start, plus the ability to go more upright or more forward.

In terms of how GripWalk soles change ramp angle & forward lean, they shouldn't (when made according to ISO 23223). From the boot's perspective in a GW binding, adding a GW sole to a boot doesn't change the actual ramp angle in the binding vs. a 5355 sole. On a flat surface, like a table, a GW equipped boot will have a flatter ramp angle and a more upright stance, but once in an actual GW binding the boot returns to its intended (5355) geometry. In CAD and in GripWalk boot testing jigs, the ramp & forward lean are the same whether the same boot has a GW sole or a 5355 sole. Due to manufacturing tolerances, I have measured 0.25° more forward lean with the GW sole boot vs. the 5355 sole boot. I've measured far greater discrepancies in forward lean in different versions of various competitor's boot, usually due to how the boot was removed from the mold in production.

[skinipenem]

There are multiple threads on boot alignment.

OP asking about forward lean and then discussions including ramp and delta used incorrectly.

Ramp angle is changed inside the boot the fore aft angle of the boot board.

Delta is changed by the difference in height of the toe and heel on the outside of the boot measured from the base of the ski.

Forward lean is the fore aft angle of the boot cuff. Fixed measurement and not adjustable on most boots. Spoilers can add forward lean to some extent.

I could of course be wrong/carelessly typing, so feel free to correct me. But can we at least get the definitions correct before cunting up the forum with confusing information that has been discussed elsewhere? Ouch too harsh? Sorry.

That being said it would be great to have a database comparing Forward lean angles based on an industry standard. Especially since Forward lean is relatively fixed for most high performance boots.

Here is a thread on alignment (there are others):

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app

Boot alignment based on an individuals unique anatomy physiology, and perception/feel certainly makes a difference for skier performance. For peak performance, simply adapting to any boot does not work.

Honestly, the best move is to find a boot fitter that is the real deal that can get you in the appropriate boot align in the shop or a high level, maybe world cup level, ski coach/ instructor that can visually analyze your skiing/ alignment on snow. There are not many of these folks.

Rant over


Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[onenerdykid]

That being said it would be great to have a database comparing Forward lean angles based on an industry standard. Especially since Forward lean is relatively fixed for most high performance boots.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

As mentioned above somewhere - there isn't an industry standard on how to measure forward lean (even Head gives two different numbers for the same boot depending on how/where you measure).

Main limiting factors: there are no straight lines up the back of the cuff, cuff pivot location differs from brand to brand/boot to boot, and the cuff is not a cylinder like a bike's head tube.

Atomic provides a measurement up the back of the boot, but since the last of the shell & cuff is a curvy line that moves forward and rearward as you go from the bottom of the heel up to the top of the cuff, the measured angle is a gross approximation.

Because of this "curvy line", you could have a boot that measures close to 13° but ends up creating more forward lean than a different boot with 15° due to how it actually pushes on the back of your leg.

Unfortunately, this is not like comparing bike frame geometry. It just doesn't work that way.

[skinipenem]

As mentioned above somewhere - there isn't an industry standard on how to measure forward lean (even Head gives two different numbers for the same boot depending on how/where you measure).

Main limiting factors: there are no straight lines up the back of the cuff, cuff pivot location differs from brand to brand/boot to boot, and the cuff is not a cylinder like a bike's head tube.

Atomic provides a measurement up the back of the boot, but since the last of the shell & cuff is a curvy line that moves forward and rearward as you go from the bottom of the heel up to the top of the cuff, the measured angle is a gross approximation.

Because of this "curvy line", you could have a boot that measures close to 13° but ends up creating more forward lean than a different boot with 15° due to how it actually pushes on the back of your leg.

Unfortunately, this is not like comparing bike frame geometry. It just doesn't work that way.

I agree.

A simple way to measure/ estimate forward lean could be to take a dowel rod and place it inside the boot against the rearward most aspect of the heel pocket and top of cuff. Increasing forward lean can be accomplished with a spoiler so one would think the minimum forward lean of a boot should be measured.

I am unsure the dowel rod method would work well though due to your aforementioned boot cuff curviness so maybe create a standard peg leg or take the leg [emoji3091] off of your favorite mannequin, risking eternal loneliness or the loss of an upright dance partner.


Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Sylvan]

Interesting info, thanks.
And to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that skiers ignorantly get used to whatever boots they buy absent a good boot fitter, more that a couple degrees forward lean in either direction wont make a boot unskiable. But does an ergonomic ideal exist? Yes, we're in agreement there.
And I do stand by the bike geo analogy. Bike geo is the basis of bike fit, comes in many different options, one of which can be chosen to optimize a human's ergonomics, is often stated incorrectly, and can be adapted to dial in fit via frame size, stem length/height, bar length/height, seat post height, reach/angle adjust headsets, etc.
All that to say, I'm super interested in this topic, but beyond basic definitions, don't have the experience to be discussing them eloquently here (clearly, so am going to go get myself edumacated, after I ride my bike, and eat some Turkey. Giving thanks for the always rational, effectively articulated, off season TGR threads. Carry on.

[Climber Joe]

The reason I posted this, is I dislocated my ankle about 14 years ago and had surgery. The first year I had trouble skiing at all, due to limited ankle flexion. Specifically Dorsal flexion.

After some scraping and some other PT work I gained back enough flexion to ski, and it hasn’t really bothered me in most boots (I was skiing Fischer vacuum and then Dalbello DRS) but then last year it got so warm in February I started folding my 130 flex lange RX and it precipitated ankle pain that lasted for months, and since I had to ski braced and tentative for a while, it turned into knee inflammation.

I’m back to normal feeling in the ankle, but I wanna avoid future issues with this.

I’m currently thinking I’ll go back to Dalbello since I can get their DRS in a 140, I can run a 130 most days, swap to the 140 when it’s warm.

Since I work on skis full time I don’t wanna have to get tons of work done on each shell, so starting off with a boot that works with my issues is important to me.

Fischer boots, Dalbello dRS, Lange RS/RX LV, and Nordica usually work well, and only require a navicular and maybe 6th toe grind if anything, and then custom liners and my very extreme insoles.

[Norseman]

Interesting to get the thoughts of a boot designer mixed in here with us Averege Dweebs.

Since it hasn't been explicitly stated (and at risk of beating dead horses with the Stick of Pedantry) ... the whole boot geo / binding delta / mount point puzzle has been much simplified for me in recent years by framing it as: "how does this affect where my center of gravity is placed on the ski?"

Physiology and style make it a unique puzzle for everyone of course.. but that one central question makes it easier to think about, IMHO. Small tweaks at the ankle make big tweaks at the shoulders.

/obv

[onenerdykid]

Interesting to get the thoughts of a boot designer mixed in here with us Averege Dweebs.

Since it hasn't been explicitly stated (and at risk of beating dead horses with the Stick of Pedantry) ... the whole boot geo / binding delta / mount point puzzle has been much simplified for me in recent years by framing it as: "how does this affect where my center of gravity is placed on the ski?"

Physiology and style make it a unique puzzle for everyone of course.. but that one central question makes it easier to think about, IMHO. Small tweaks at the ankle make big tweaks at the shoulders.

/obv

You're right - at the end of the day, it's all about finding your proper balanced position on the ski. While we think a 15° forward lean combined with a 4° ramp angle is a great starting point, there isn't one geometry equation that works for everyone. All of these aspects (especially forward lean) should be adjustable, which is why we build that into our boots.

[mntlion]

As mentioned above somewhere - there isn't an industry standard on how to measure forward lean (even Head gives two different numbers for the same boot depending on how/where you measure).

Main limiting factors: there are no straight lines up the back of the cuff, cuff pivot location differs from brand to brand/boot to boot, and the cuff is not a cylinder like a bike's head tube.

Atomic provides a measurement up the back of the boot, but since the last of the shell & cuff is a curvy line that moves forward and rearward as you go from the bottom of the heel up to the top of the cuff, the measured angle is a gross approximation.

Because of this "curvy line", you could have a boot that measures close to 13° but ends up creating more forward lean than a different boot with 15° due to how it actually pushes on the back of your leg.

Unfortunately, this is not like comparing bike frame geometry. It just doesn't work that way.

Meh, What do you know. Aren't you a dentist anyways

(thanks for the info. Good to hear it direct)