Printable View
Yes, different boots have differences in the relative position of the toe and heel fittings but higher toe fittings would give you more ramp unless the heel fittings were also higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadzilla
Like SFB said some folks like it or some folks don't know that they might like it better with a more neutral ramp.
When we are talking about shimming radical st, does the shim from b and d replace the little black dynafit shim that comes from the factory or go on in addition to, anyone know what I'm talking about?
It goes in additionQuote:
Originally Posted by volklpowdermaniac
so when dynafit says " 6mm delta with vulcan boot" , how much different is that with other boots? Has anybody compared (especially interested in cochise comparison)
brah that would be a totally unscientfic ob from skiing and mounting bro brahs dynawhompers 40 hours a week the past decades worth of winters.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
the real # is probably way higher.
but yeah i can't believe them dynabros are ignoring a few gazzilion type A nal need an excuse for their poor skiing for even longer:rolleyes2
So you're saying it's all in a person's head? What about forward lean on boot cuffs? Insoles? Canting? Are you the sole mounter of "dynawhompers" in Utah or the World for that matter? Do people only ski in Utah? Have you really been mounting "dynawhompers" for 40 hours a week for 10 years? How do you find time to ski so much if you're mounting bindings for 40 hours a week? Or do you work more than that, because surely you mount other types of bindings than "dynawhompers"?Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
i don't count or quantify much i ski a good bit mount good a bit and have mounted enough bro brahs, hard shreddin betties bc newbees jongs spansered pro guides maggots including some type a's dynas who don't have this issue. i aint a real techy ski tech and roll kiss style
i don't deny ramp angle issues affect skiing just no to the point that most skilled skiers notice or care. and i have never ever exprienced someones ski day in the baccountry ruined by ramp angle although ive seen people blame poor skiing on about everything
i neeed to go by the bd shop today and grab my plum jig I'll ask techs who mount there and i bet it's tweeen 10 to 1 and 5 who need to address this bigger for some issue.
I've never seen it ruin someone's ski day either but I have seen people improve and be more comfortable on high delta tech bindings/boots after having the toe shimmed. I'm talking people that are very good skiers with competitive racing backgrounds. I also know people who get by fine without a shim and they ski well but you can tell by their posture that the delta is high.
I used to have two sets of the old super 7s, one with fks and one with radicals. Both mounted in the same place (thinking they would ski similarly). The set with the dynafits skied terribly, I constantly felt like I was going to fall over the front and would often overpower the skis, sometimes resulting in a crash.
Now I have the same radicals on some renegades. They feel very good , but the ski is longer and stiffer than the super 7 so less sensitive to the ramp.
I've got 13/14 Mercurys (same clog as the Vulcan) & 12/13 Cochise 120's & they both have 6mm delta in my Beast 16's.Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
B+D shims for sale. With screws. Send a pm. They were the large shims for radicals
Due to some ankle problem, I skied for the last 60 days on my backcountry setup with dynafits, shimmed with 7mm under the toe.
Yesterday I was able to ski my alpine setup for the first time, salomon bindings.
The boots are very similar in forward lean.
I immediately felt I was in the back seat, and it took a few runs to get centered.
I attribute this to the still positive ramp angle on the dynafits, which caused me to stick my butt back to maintain balance.
A friend happened to have some nip 3.2 mm b&d shims for my radicals hanging around so those will go on this week, ????-- if I like Em but want more can I replace with the bigger 6 something shim and still use same holes? It would, by my count after adding the 3.2 shim this week, make it the third time screws are going in and out of those holes
I've circled back to this thread I started and Ive changed my mind. When I chsnged skis and remounted my ft12's i shimmed my toes and I have to say in soft snow I can stay more balanced fore/aft and now my touring setup skis more similarly to my alpine setup.
It's pretty nice huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by klikboom
Not necessarily. This is getting complicated, but the height of the toe fittings matters in relation to the boot board your foot sits on too. If the fittings seem high in relation to a rockered sole, it doesn't mean they're high in relation to your foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Yes, it is complicated. I was speaking in general terms that tech fittings that sit higher on the toe will lower the toe. You are right, that doesn't take into consideration how the boot was designed and where your foot sits in the boot.
On my Quests the WTR blocks ate thicker than the alpine blocks and the ramp is actually less with STH bindings and a little more with Tech bindings.
my impression is that the binding ramp angle is simply one factor of many that contribute to stance issues on particular skis...you factor in boot ramp, binding ramp, boot forward lean, shape of foot, ankle position vs. tib/fib ankle fulcrum point, height of balls of foot bones compared to heel bone elevation, arch height, leg length, wide/narrow hip, beer belly forward center of gravity, six pack abs rear weight bias, barrell chest, sunken chest....etc...etc....and don't forget the endless tinkering with mount binding mount point, rocker profile, sidecut. Don't forget the thick high volume custom liners where foam may compress more in balls of feet to exacerbate ramp angle perception vs. flat more rigid soled innerboots that maintain a more consistent shape. ARRRGGHHHH...lol.
I skied my dynafit mercuries side by side with scarpa maestale's (same innerboot/footbed in both shells) and found that the built in ramp of the mercuries was noticably more aggressive (armada declivity skis and dynafit vertical st bindings)...setup skied better with the mercuries, I was more back seat and unbalanced in the scarpas (upright fl position, forward one is too extreme) for this particular setup. (forward lean of boots were matched with foam wedges between rear cuff and innerboot. It's all fun stuff to dick around with but admit it's frustrating dialing in the perfect stance angles...which is typically why i buy and intitially tinker and find the best compromise then wear stuff out until it breaks, then fix it and ski it till it irrepairably falls apart. :eek:
Endlessly fascinating arcane subject…given all the variables, "ideal" balance is so subjective to each skier, and just requires some persistent tinkering. Fifty years ago when the first plastic Lange boots came out, we made our own 6 inch "jet sticks" from thin "miniboggen" sledding material, T-nutted to the rear to heighten our boots. Then we radically shimmed our Look turntable binding heels to achieve an aggressive ramp angle to put quicker pressure on the 207cm. Rossignol 102 Strato tips in the bumps.
Our skis [60mm. underfoot] did not do the work for us like modern equipment, we had to work em'! And powder skiing on them was a fine athletic endeavor.
Recently I switched from Salomon boots with the "perfect" ramp angle for me, to new Rossignol All Track Pros. I felt slightly flat footed in the new boots which skied all right until steeps, say 45 degrees, where I was fighting to engage tips soon
enough.
This is an old fart talking, [50 years of "ski bumming,"] but finesse and economy of motion is good at ANY age and ability.
As an experiment I took out the zeppa [footboard] of my Salomon and compared it to the zeppa of the Rossi, which had much less ramp. I asked my boot fitter to simple modify my Rossi ramp to match the the Salomon ramp, and presto, I'm right back in my comfort zone, able to fall right over my tips into my turn on the steepest terrain.
SO--if you're an experienced skier, [or not,] don't settle, keep tinkering for the sweet zone you love, to find YOUR correct balance in your boots. No amount of technique adjustment will help if you're out of balance.
25 shipped with screws. 6.4mm shim from bnd. Any takers? For radical st/ft
Sold.
Sorry EastcoastPDR but I have a need for Comfort/Vertical shims. Anyone??
And (as another old fart), remember how racers of the "jet sticks" era used to grind their boot soles down to get closer to the ski? I still can't get used to being high off the ski, and find the differences of height off the ski to be far more noticeable to me than slight changes in ramp angle (although there is clearly a correct and individualized binding/boot combo for everyone - from the perspective of ramp angle and forward lean).Quote:
Originally Posted by oldskibum
For example, I can far more easily switch between G3 Onyx's, Ions, and Dynafit Vertical ST's (with their slightly different ramp angles), than I can go to either of the two frame bindings I owned (Marker Dukes or Fritchi Diamir Freerides). These two frame bindings felt "sluggish" to me, for lack of a better word.
Cheers,
Thom
I hadn't really thought about the ramp angle of my verts before seeing this thread, but I always felt that something wasn't quite right. After reading all of the posts in this thread, thinking about it a bit, stepping into my alpine set up on one foot and my touring set up on the other I decided to shim my toes to see if it made everything right/proved once and for all that Techtalk is full of a bunch of overly analytical nerds who should ski more.
I decided to go with Jon's Sollyfit toe plates, as re-using holes with really long screws on a dynafit toe that already had a spinner made me nervous. As many have said before, Jon's products are awesome and the service was quick and painless - even to the Great White-ish North.
I have enough miles on in a wide enough range of conditions now to know that I was not a fan of the dynafit ramp angle. With the shims my fore/aft balance is much more neutral - i.e. I can drive with my shins if I want or I can ski neutrally if I want, I can better control how much power I put into my boots and I don't constantly feel like I'm balancing on top of a ball trying not to get chucked into the back seat or thrown over the bars. The difference was apparent enough for me that I am willing to bet those who say they don't notice the ramp haven't really thought about it, don't switch back and forth between alpine and tech set ups all that frequently and more than likely haven't tried shimming their toes.
This simple modification made everything right on my touring set up and demonstrates once again that tech talk is full of overly analytical nerds who happen to know what they're talking about at least some of the time. Thanks to those who weighed in on this one.
on Comforts, 1/4" plastic, cut & drill, check screws after first climb/ski. I just added toe shims + 2deg cant TSO to both skis and finally can find my inside edges on AT like on alpine, and standing & not sitting on shitter any more. toe shim is good unless you like skiing in a crouch. now I enjoy my AT gear enough to whine less about lift ticket $$. part of that is thanks to your Spectre review, I got a pair. better than Titans all around.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Talking about being white and nerdy, I measured the net ramp angle on my bc setup, ft radicals shimmed with 7mm, and bd factor mx.boots,
And I compared it with one of my alpine setups, salomon 914 with lange rx 130 boots.
I measured the actual angle to floor of the boot board.
At: 9 degrees
Alpine: 5 degrees.
This is a noticeable difference when I ski and switch between the two.
But I can ski both, and they don't feel bad, just notice the difference.