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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beeshbeesh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tjaardbreeuwer

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.

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 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?.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mntlion

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
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c8fa1e0342.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shitskier

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shitskier

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pukesno

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shitskier

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?

---

serious question… are you trying to solve an on-slope performance issue or more just trying to wrap your mind around it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pukesno

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

---

I don't think so. My lower buckles are usually somewhere mid range. A little looser on XT3s with zipfits. Sometimes I crank them on the Maestrales with thin liners when skiing steeps. I don't feel like I have any play here.

Quote:

---

serious question… are you trying to solve an on-slope performance issue or more just trying to wrap your mind around it?

---

I mean, I'm always trying to ski less shitty! But I think this is more the latter. Wondering if I could access more range of motion if I could squat low on the skis without getting backseated. But yeah, no idea if this is common or something I should try to fix. Just started thinking about it after seeing things like this:


(https://skierlab.com/are-your-ski-bo...s-or-just-bad/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?.

---

Answering my own question: They measure and ski 17*. Muy aggressive. And it's actually sin^-1 not tan^-1 since your boot sole runs on an incline between heel height and toe height, not just distance between the two (BSL mount)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskier

Answering my own question: They measure and ski 17*. Muy aggressive. And it's actually sin^-1 not tan^-1 since your boot sole runs on an incline between heel height and toe height, not just distance between the two (BSL mount)

---

Unless you have some stiletto heel delta, you will not be able to tell the difference between those two ramp angle formulas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shitskier

Unless you have some stiletto heel delta, you will not be able to tell the difference between those two ramp angle formulas.

---

Huskier skis in Louboutins!

Hmm… doesn’t have the same ring to it as saying someone skis in jeans.

[QUOTE=shitskier;7052815]I don't think so. My lower buckles are usually somewhere mid range. A little looser on XT3s with zipfits. Sometimes I crank them on the Maestrales with thin liners when skiing steeps. I don't feel like I have any play here.



Something to look at is if your ankle is flexing below the hinge point of the boot, the upper cuff will get locked up on the lower cog, pushing you into the backseat. To rule this out, try putting a temporary heel lift between the liner and boot board about a 1/4” thick to see if raising your ankle in the boot will line it up with the hinge point, and see if it helps you flex the boot and stay in balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pukesno

Something to look at is if your ankle is flexing below the hinge point of the boot, the upper cuff will get locked up on the lower cog, pushing you into the backseat. To rule this out, try putting a temporary heel lift between the liner and boot board about a 1/4” thick to see if raising your ankle in the boot will line it up with the hinge point, and see if it helps you flex the boot and stay in balance.

---

Thanks! I tried putting 5mm foam under the heels on my Maestrales, and it put me right on the edge of being able to balance in parallel squat. Separately, I also tried 10mm foam as a spoiler and that put me fully in balance. I'm not sure if the heel lift helped because of hinge point or just tilting me forward a bit. Not that it matters much, I guess I just have to decide how much to to heel lift and how much spoiler to add and try skiing like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shitskier

Thanks! I tried putting 5mm foam under the heels on my Maestrales, and it put me right on the edge of being able to balance in parallel squat. Separately, I also tried 10mm foam as a spoiler and that put me fully in balance. I'm not sure if the heel lift helped because of hinge point or just tilting me forward a bit. Not that it matters much, I guess I just have to decide how much to to heel lift and how much spoiler to add and try skiing like that.

---

I have a very limited understanding here but I think that although heel lift and forward lean may get you to the same place as far as being able to balance and squat, they effect your skiing differently. From my very unscientific testing, forward lean makes me feel athletic and balanced on skis and heel lift makes me feel backseat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zion zig zag

I have a very limited understanding here but I think that although heel lift and forward lean may get you to the same place as far as being able to balance and squat, they effect your skiing differently. From my very unscientific testing, forward lean makes me feel athletic and balanced on skis and heel lift makes me feel backseat.

---

I think I roughly agree with this, so my thought is to fix it mostly with forward lean, as long as I still have ankle range of motion. If I have to use so much forward lean adjustment that I run out of ankle dorsiflexion, I'll have to use some heel lift.

I guess I'll see if it's important. Haven't ever skied a setup with enough lean/ramp to be able to squat in balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zion zig zag

I have a very limited understanding here but I think that although heel lift and forward lean may get you to the same place as far as being able to balance and squat, they effect your skiing differently. From my very unscientific testing, forward lean makes me feel athletic and balanced on skis and heel lift makes me feel backseat.

---

They both move your center of gravity, but fwd lean, closes the ankle joint and tensions the Achilles , while the heel lift opens the ankle joint and slackens the Achilles. I need a lift bc of tight ankle flexion so prefer a somewhat more upright and stiff boot to compensate.

In general if the boot board ramp works w your ankle flexibility , increase forward lean to get your weight balanced where you want it.

If that lean maxes out your ankle flexion too much, add a lift and then reassess forward lean .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onenerdykid

allows for deeper tread patterns for better grip (for sure helpful beyond the parking lot) [...] If a brand has done it correctly, GripWalk should ski and feel no differently than a 2-component ISO 5355 grip pad.

---

so dumb question here.... I'm kind of bad at balance (though surprisingly okay at skiing nonetheless) and I find my plug boots slide all around on a slick floor or a long bootpack with rocks and ice in it. I don't know a lot about GW but is this a product that you could use to essentially add vibram-esque soles to your inbounds boots, like race boots?


edited to remove other long, rambling thoughts about my preferences for-
- upright boots (I have a large calf which influences this a lot)
- traditional mount points - despise "progressive" mounts as much as spoilers
- flatish bindings (because it just generally reduces all the variables you're considering across pairs of skis)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mntlion

nice info, and good to see it all written down

other points:

boot ramp angle can also effect this, AND changes based on size. IE: a 22 boot has a steeper angle then a 29 boot. The toe and heel are the same height and differance, but this is spread over a shorter lenght of foot so more angle in smaller boots


A boots F lean might be the same, but a person with a bigger calf will be more forward in that same boot then someone with chicken legs as less calf to be pushed forward


A person with a greater ankle range of motion, can often use a further back mounting point, as they can flex farther, so move their own balance point a greater range from upright/neutral to the max forward possition.


Binding ramp angle is also anoher variable that plays into the skis mounting point. (I've skied the same ski, but changed the ramp angle and it skied VERY differently)

---

you're always so on point with the boot fitting comments. Where do you fit boots? Calgary? I wanna visit.

@mtnlion and others

Would y'all expand more about what factors in boot, binding, anatomy, and ski affect mount point?

I know we've touched on mount point in a few posts above.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesski

so dumb question here.... I'm kind of bad at balance (though surprisingly okay at skiing nonetheless) and I find my plug boots slide all around on a slick floor or a long bootpack with rocks and ice in it. I don't know a lot about GW but is this a product that you could use to essentially add vibram-esque soles to your inbounds boots, like race boots?


edited to remove other long, rambling thoughts about my preferences for-
- upright boots (I have a large calf which influences this a lot)
- traditional mount points - despise "progressive" mounts as much as spoilers
- flatish bindings (because it just generally reduces all the variables you're considering across pairs of skis)

---

Not a bootfitter but as far as I understand one can't readily/easily add gripwalk soles to boots that weren't initially designed to take them.

Yaktrax does makes SkiTrax that greatly help walking around traction though. Think of them as essentially shoe soles that you can "click" into. Not as seamless but will save your hip on a slick floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesski

so dumb question here.... I'm kind of bad at balance (though surprisingly okay at skiing nonetheless) and I find my plug boots slide all around on a slick floor or a long bootpack with rocks and ice in it. I don't know a lot about GW but is this a product that you could use to essentially add vibram-esque soles to your inbounds boots, like race boots?


edited to remove other long, rambling thoughts about my preferences for-
- upright boots (I have a large calf which influences this a lot)
- traditional mount points - despise "progressive" mounts as much as spoilers
- flatish bindings (because it just generally reduces all the variables you're considering across pairs of skis)

---

Presuming you haven't worn your soles down too much (and that you have solid plastic soles), there are Vibram lifter kits you can find. Head makes some:

https://www.skiallin.ca/products/hee...tor-wcr-vibram

But I'd bet you can put that on any plug.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX

F
What I was referring to specifically is the GripWalk AFD on the Look Pivot 15 and 18. It's 3.5mm higher than the alpine AFD with no change in the heel. The binding function doesn't require it, even with the rockered sole. I've never been able to get a straight answer from a rep why (and they don't care anyway). It makes the binding ski significantly differently, but it might jive better with very progressive mounts. I personally hate it.

---

I was already skiing pivots with shims under the toes prior to the GW AFD on "progressive" mounted skis in the quiver (Billy Goats, Mfree 108) because I felt like it allowed me to maintain a similar stance as traditional mounts and the GW sole really does walk better when you're in your boots working or traveling. I still have the alpine afd on a few traditional chargers that I only ski with the beefy boots.