NERDING OUT- Mount Position, Cuff Angle, Binding Delta, and the like

[natebob]

Thanks @XXXer, skinipenem and LT. I'll try some of that out.

[westoxified]

I tore my Achilles skiing in a raichle/dalbello and I didn't think anything of it but I got some replies to that making me think that boot makes it more likely.

I know people complain about a hard stop in boot flex but I think having a limit might be a good thing... and I think you might need an overlap boot to have a limit.

i am skiing the dalbello cabrio lv 130 for the exact opposite reason. it's the stiffest fucking thing i've ever skied. yes the harder you flex, the more it locks your heel but goddamn the liner in this thing is on some lambo level performance. i needed more clamp so moved to an upsized intuition pro wrap 12mm (softened it up nicely) and dropped the cabrio lv liner in my MTN Labs. holy shit i now have the best skiing grilamid tech boot ever....ROM is now around 20 so there is that caveat. but i haven't skied the grilamid cabrio lv free or roxa, yet.

and on bindings: toe screw pattern and elasticity are the performance defining features on any binding. there, i said it.

@marshal, you gonna buy those dobie gps or what?

[turnfarmer]

Hmmm. My ruler and I get 4mm delta for the MN Strives, 5mm for the GW Strives. For STH2 WTR, I get different values for 13 and 16 DIN versions (8mm and 5mm respectively).

I,d trust your numbers, it’s been a couple of months since I measured and it was with a janky caliper.

[turnfarmer]

I tore my Achilles skiing in a raichle/dalbello and I didn't think anything of it but I got some replies to that making me think that boot makes it more likely.

I know people complain about a hard stop in boot flex but I think having a limit might be a good thing... and I think you might need an overlap boot to have a limit.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Totally agree a hard stop is good to protect Achilles. But, bindings are only designed to protect bones.
Harald Harb who preaches Boots shouldn’t flex and skis in 150 flex overlap boots tore his Achilles skiing.

[beeshbeesh]

i am skiing the dalbello cabrio lv 130 for the exact opposite reason. it's the stiffest fucking thing i've ever skied. yes the harder you flex, the more it locks your heel but goddamn the liner in this thing is on some lambo level performance. i needed more clamp so moved to an upsized intuition pro wrap 12mm (softened it up nicely) and dropped the cabrio lv liner in my MTN Labs. holy shit i now have the best skiing grilamid tech boot ever....ROM is now around 20 so there is that caveat. but i haven't skied the grilamid cabrio lv free or roxa, yet.

and on bindings: toe screw pattern and elasticity are the performance defining features on any binding. there, i said it.

@marshal, you gonna buy those dobie gps or what?

Sure, but can you dig into the flex very far with that linear flex, or does it just feel stiff off the top? What forward lean are you running? How does that affect your balance on the ski considering all the other factors in the thread? What mount point do you prefer with your boot set up?

Totally agree a hard stop is good to protect Achilles. But, bindings are only designed to protect bones.
Harald Harb who preaches Boots shouldn’t flex and skis in 150 flex overlap boots tore his Achilles skiing.

Okay Okay, so wait a minute. How do you tear an Achilles skiing without over-dorsiflexing? What forward lean is he running?

[SoVT Joey]

Boots shouldn’t ever flex and you have to have releasable pole straps to correctly perform dolphin turns. I don’t know where that falls, but I’m sure it needs to be said before getting too much farther.

more serious note, alpine setups that people are happy with should be used to set up touring setups as a baseline. Skiing a boot with different ramps and forward lean for each will make it very hard to match and changing deltas to compensate isn’t going to fix the issue. Spoilers, ramps, and deltas are all individual from each other but some janky compensation can be found but will never be the same. All three must coincide for set ups to feel the same between touring and alpine.

[westoxified]

Sure, but can you dig into the flex very far with that linear flex, or does it just feel stiff off the top? What forward lean are you running? How does that affect your balance on the ski considering all the other factors in the thread? What mount point do you prefer with your boot set up?

running the increased forward lean puck/chip that come with the boots. skiing the new Shift2 with the alpine soles on the boot so delta similar to a pivot. i think mp is irrelevant to boot choice.

with the stock liner, it felt like the flex curve was sitting at like 5% sag. moving to the softer pro wrap (intuition says this makes any boot stiffer), i was able to get more into the flex curve of the boot for better off-pisting, perhaps 20%. the A tongues on the lv 130 are burly but whenever i tried the boot with a standard longue liner, it felt too soft and didn't support my chicken stanchions.

i'm 6'3" 185 and skiing a 27.5. part of what i think is great about this boot for me is that the cuff is a 27/28 unlike most brands that are 26/27. granted the boot is too high volume for me and i had to go to a 28,5 12mm pro wrap. the buckles on this boot are bullshit and the middle ones need to be swapped between left and right or you'll never get them to lock. all that said, i will never go back to a 4 buckle.

[Tjaardbreeuwer]

alpine setups that people are happy with should be used to set up touring setups as a baseline. Skiing a boot with different ramps and forward lean for each will make it very hard to match and changing deltas to compensate isn’t going to fix the issue. Spoilers, ramps, and deltas are all individual from each other but some janky compensation can be found but will never be the same. All three must coincide for set ups to feel the same between touring and alpine.

I started to go that route (measured all my set ups and now all but 1 have the same net boot board angle). But then, I noticed I had set up my AT boots with less forward lean at the cuff than my resort boots.

So , the one thing I wonder about making your AT set up match your lift served:

-Center of Mass

When I’m on my AT skis I have anywhere from a 10-25 pound weight sitting on my back, 10” or so behind my “normal” CoM.
When you hear all the talk about women’s skis being designed for “women’s different CoM”, adding a 20 lbs lump way up and back there sure has to make a huge difference!

If we think of that graphic that @Lord Thomas posted, that looks VERY different if you add a backpack.

So maybe matching angles is not such a good idea after all?

[Dromond]

I started to go that route (measured all my set ups and now all but 1 have the same net boot board angle). But then, I noticed I had set up my AT boots with less forward lean at the cuff than my resort boots.

So , the one thing I wonder about making your AT set up match your lift served:

-Center of Mass

When I’m on my AT skis I have anywhere from a 10-25 pound weight sitting on my back, 10” or so behind my “normal” CoM.
When you hear all the talk about women’s skis being designed for “women’s different CoM”, adding a 20 lbs lump way up and back there sure has to make a huge difference!

If we think of that graphic that @Lord Thomas posted, that looks VERY different if you add a backpack.

So maybe matching angles is not such a good idea after all?

I think that is true. Also, having everything perfectly matched between touring and alpine skis might not make your CoM perfectly balanced over each since they are probably different skis, mount points, and flex patterns. The boots have different flex and feel too which affects how you balance on the skis. I don’t think there is replacement for experimentation or understanding of what gets the best balance point for each setup.

[Gepeto]

kool discussion... i need schooling

I'll start with; I'm in the 130lv free with zipz in them. Stiffest 3pc boot I've been in. I believe the zipfits aid stiffness .supreme fit. And I can't get the setup to fold.

Using it at 13° across the quiver 72thru118 under foot.

I've been gravitating to a more upright posture. Finding it easier to stay stacked, be more athletic, and creating greater range of motion towards absorption/extension. This has caused me to be more fore/aft sensitive.

So, I'm currently digging a rabbit hole on what I thought was going to be a mishmash of ramp °

Not so much; same pivot across most of the quiver, but have been forced to dick around with the zeppa because of acute instep pressure. So, how are you determining the net zeppa ramp - or can total ramp from the ski be measured at the boot board?

Which begs the questions:

Is the shell bed presumed ready to receive the bootboard at level?

Is it manufacturer dependant?

* It seems to have gotten harder to find boot stats in the public domain? delta/splay/cuff angle

[Huskier]

^^ I don't have an answer but maybe try the "wtf boots" thread? Maybe they know

Quick question: How is forward lean measured? I'm going from a 12* boot to 17 but I'm skeptical of the manufacturers claimed lean. Is the fudge-able?

Second quick question: comparing ramp angle resulting from heel delta vs bsl, the formula is TAN-1(heel delta/BSL), correct? Is it directly additive to boot ramp?.

[mntlion]

1) a vauge marketing number. Depends on the shape of the rear cuff on the inside. That is NOT a straight line, so not sure if all brands will measure below, or above the anlkle. or some combo of heel to calf?

2) put a right angle on the boot board (L square?) , and meaure the part that sticks up.

[Gepeto]

1)...put a right angle on the boot board (L square?) , and meaure the part that sticks up.

Terrible pic, but that's what I sussed out

[SoVT Joey]

kool discussion... i need schooling

I'll start with; I'm in the 130lv free with zipz in them. Stiffest 3pc boot I've been in. I believe the zipfits aid stiffness .supreme fit. And I can't get the setup to fold.

Using it at 13° across the quiver 72thru118 under foot.

I've been gravitating to a more upright posture. Finding it easier to stay stacked, be more athletic, and creating greater range of motion towards absorption/extension. This has caused me to be more fore/aft sensitive.

So, I'm currently digging a rabbit hole on what I thought was going to be a mishmash of ramp °

Not so much; same pivot across most of the quiver, but have been forced to dick around with the zeppa because of acute instep pressure. So, how are you determining the net zeppa ramp - or can total ramp from the ski be measured at the boot board?

Which begs the questions:

Is the shell bed presumed ready to receive the bootboard at level?

Is it manufacturer dependant?

* It seems to have gotten harder to find boot stats in the public domain? delta/splay/cuff angle

i use the app called bubble level a lot. put your boot on a level surface and then lay your phone on the boot board in the boot, if you cant see it orient the phone so that you can take a screen shot while its laying in there.

[Marshal Olson]

One other thing I have been playing with in my own skiing, and also using when helping folks go from traditional mount to progressive mount skis.

i don’t really understand the biomechanics of it, but bumping my stance ~2” wider has really helped me go from -11ish mount trad skis to -6.5ish mount progressive skis. Essentially I find that I am able to engaged knees and ankles with less flexion with a little wider stance, and that gets my balance where it needs to be with these different mounts.

am I taking crazy pills or is this actually a thing?

[arild]

Def crazy pills. Kidding. My kids noticed me skiing with a wider stance on the fr110s vs fl113s. [emoji846]

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[Andyski]

One other thing I have been playing with in my own skiing, and also using when helping folks go from traditional mount to progressive mount skis.

i don’t really understand the biomechanics of it, but bumping my stance ~2” wider has really helped me go from -11ish mount trad skis to -6.5ish mount progressive skis. Essentially I find that I am able to engaged knees and ankles with less flexion with a little wider stance, and that gets my balance where it needs to be with these different mounts.

am I taking crazy pills or is this actually a thing?

it's a thing for me, too. I noticed the wider stance happening w/o me thinking about it on Reckoner 102s after riding M102s in the morning. the Reckoners were just better skied that way. When I then got some Reckoner 112s, I did have to remind myself to get a bit wider (vs. Katanas that day), but it definitely helped.

[Ørion]

Just spit balling here (and obviously both styles require a blending of rotary, pressure, and angulation) but a wider stance would open up your hip more and give you greater access to rotational movements in your hip joints, among other things.

I could see that being emphasized more with a centered-mounted ski in comparison to a rearward-mounted one.

[Jason4]

One other thing I have been playing with in my own skiing, and also using when helping folks go from traditional mount to progressive mount skis.

i don’t really understand the biomechanics of it, but bumping my stance ~2” wider has really helped me go from -11ish mount trad skis to -6.5ish mount progressive skis. Essentially I find that I am able to engaged knees and ankles with less flexion with a little wider stance, and that gets my balance where it needs to be with these different mounts.

am I taking crazy pills or is this actually a thing?

I have dead flat arches and notice a difference in range of motion based of stance width. At some point I was going through some sort of running shoe fit wizard and it said to stand with feet touching, put a hand between your knees and check to see if the pressure on your hand increases or stays constant during a squat. Mine increases which tells me that when I'm skiing with my feet tight together some of my ROM is blocked. The fit wizard told me I needed old man support shoes.

[shitskier]

Thought I'd throw this figure into the conversation not to make a point but simply to add some visuals. This added a lot of clarity for me when I started playing around with different forward lean boots and binding deltas. Helped me zero in on my happy place

Attachment 488757

I'm really curious about correct fore/aft balance and where most people fall on this. I was trying to figure out some forward lean and ramp angle settings. This chart implies that in deep flexion a skier's center of mass should be over the center of the foot. A few other web sources mentioned as a test, being able to squat wearing your ski boots on flat ground without losing balance. I imagine a better test would be to use slight shims under the heels to mimic binding ramp angle.

Anyway, I tried this in all of my boots (Lange XT3, Lange RX130, Maestrale RS with highest forward lean setting). And it's absolutely impossible for me. I can't get close to my thighs being parallel with the ground without falling over backwards, even while fulling maxing out my torso flexion and sticking my arms forward for balance.

Is this something I should try to fix with boots/footbeds/etc or is this common for everyone? Worried it might put me backseat when absorbing high forces etc. Most info I can find about this talks about ankle dorsiflexion. However, this type of balance is limited by forward lean, not ankle dorsiflexion. That can be distinguished by just not buckling the boot and seeing if you have enough dorsiflexion to stay in balance.

Anyway, if this chart is right I must need like a 20 degree forward lean and dynafit style binding delta. Seems crazy.

[SoVT Joey]

I'm really curious about correct fore/aft balance and where most people fall on this. I was trying to figure out some forward lean and ramp angle settings. This chart implies that in deep flexion a skier's center of mass should be over the center of the foot. A few other web sources mentioned as a test, being able to squat wearing your ski boots on flat ground without losing balance. I imagine a better test would be to use slight shims under the heels to mimic binding ramp angle.

Anyway, I tried this in all of my boots (Lange XT3, Lange RX130, Maestrale RS with highest forward lean setting). And it's absolutely impossible for me. I can't get close to my thighs being parallel with the ground without falling over backwards, even while fulling maxing out my torso flexion and sticking my arms forward for balance.

Is this something I should try to fix with boots/footbeds/etc or is this common for everyone? Worried it might put me backseat when absorbing high forces etc. Most info I can find about this talks about ankle dorsiflexion. However, this type of balance is limited by forward lean, not ankle dorsiflexion. That can be distinguished by just not buckling the boot and seeing if you have enough dorsiflexion to stay in balance.

Anyway, if this chart is right I must need like a 20 degree forward lean and dynafit style binding delta. Seems crazy.

a better test then just randomly guessing with shims, is clicking in and doing some carpet skiing. if you are still off balance in your boots and on your skis, then yes i would say it needs to be fixed.

yes center of mass should be centered over your foot for balance, but your weight should be able to be shifted forward to an athletic stance and transition to your next turn.

i fully disagree with any sort of dolphin turn crap and having weight back at all. each turn should be finished with a movement of weight down the fall line or down the mountain. also when keeping weight completely balanced and centered, the movement to stivot or slarve a finish to a turn is that much greater then if set in the athletic stance.

these are probably differences that only get found when carving clean turns and with initiation of a turn from the tip of the skis instead of from the toes or what ever PSIA tries to hybridize with new ski shapes and their useless drivel.

[shitskier]

a better test then just randomly guessing with shims, is clicking in and doing some carpet skiing. if you are still off balance in your boots and on your skis, then yes i would say it needs to be fixed.

yes center of mass should be centered over your foot for balance, but your weight should be able to be shifted forward to an athletic stance and transition to your next turn.

i fully disagree with any sort of dolphin turn crap and having weight back at all. each turn should be finished with a movement of weight down the fall line or down the mountain. also when keeping weight completely balanced and centered, the movement to stivot or slarve a finish to a turn is that much greater then if set in the athletic stance.

these are probably differences that only get found when carving clean turns and with initiation of a turn from the tip of the skis instead of from the toes or what ever PSIA tries to hybridize with new ski shapes and their useless drivel.

Who said anything about randomly guessing? Anyway, I've tested carpet skiing with multiple bindings. If you have skis you can always keep yourself upright with leverage. Testing off ski makes it more obvious that your center of mass is behind the foot, because you fall over. Squatting to parallel puts my CoM way back even with dynafit bindings at a ramp angle of 2.8 deg.

[Pukesno]

Who said anything about randomly guessing? Anyway, I've tested carpet skiing with multiple bindings. If you have skis you can always keep yourself upright with leverage. Testing off ski makes it more obvious that your center of mass is behind the foot, because you fall over. Squatting to parallel puts my CoM way back even with dynafit bindings at a ramp angle of 2.8 deg.

Curious if you can squat past parallel in tennis shoes without your heels lifting off the floor??

[shitskier]

Curious if you can squat past parallel in tennis shoes without your heels lifting off the floor??

yeah, easily in tennis shoes, barefoot, or ski boots if I leave the buckles wide open.

Is this something others can do in ski boots?

[Pukesno]

Do you have a lot of space in your boots above your instep?