Boot Canting and Balancing

[Tony Warren]

My life changed in 1972 when I got a pair of Henke Strato boots with foam injected liners. The boot tech canted my boots, a lot. My skiing improved instantly.

What do others think about canting? Inside the boot or outside? What about custom insoles? Special liners like Intuition? Fore and aft balancing?

 

[Mike Thomas]

I try to never say "Can't"

 

[Philpug]

My life changed in 1972 when I got a pair of Henke Strato boots with foam injected liners. The boot tech canted my boots, a lot. My skiing improved instantly.

What do others think about canting? Inside the boot or outside? What about custom insoles? Special liners like Intuition? Fore and aft balancing?

I think canting is very inportant. I beleive any top level boot shop that does not put every boot customer on a canting stand is doing a disservice to their customer.

Footbeds are a must, you need to start with a good foundation inside the boot.

Liners? There are a lot of options here from Zipfit to Boot Doc's and Intuitions, choices, choices.

Fore & Aft stance is also very imprtant.

When @bud heishman comes back from his hiatus, he could add a lot to all of these questions.

 

[Tony Warren]

I think canting is very inportant. I beleive any top level boot shop that does not put every boot customer on a canting stand is doing a disservice to their customer.

Footbeds are a must, you need to start with a good foundation inside the boot.

Liners? There are a lot of options here from Zipfit to Boot Doc's and Intuitions, choices, choices.

Fore & Aft stance is also very imprtant.
When @bud heishman comes back from his hiatus, he could add a lot to all of these questions.

I have had loads of footbeds in the past and liked them. With my current boots I went with the standard units the boots had. Lou Rosenfeld at Lou's Performance Ski Centre in Calgary would not sell me footbeds. He said they were unnecessary for me. I was skeptical at first but having skied on the boots for 5 seasons I think he is right.

To me, if the boots are right everything gets easier for all skiers. Too many I fear don't get that level of service, especially here in Canada where lots of boots are sold through big box sport stores with 17 year old kids doing the fitting and without all the necessary tools to do the job right.

It is so much easier to ski if you are not making little adjustments to your stance all the time through turns. It allows people to just concentrate on the real mechanics of a turn.
I am now at the point in my ski life where I don't think I will again buy new boots until someone convinces me that the ones I am using are detrimental. I used to get new boots every year.

I am keen to hear if you and others think I am missing something by not getting new boots more regularly. After all the second best part of skiing is lusting for new stuff.

 

[Uncle-A]

I agree that Canting is very important, I have had Canting done by two different methods. First was years ago when we would place wedges between the ski and the bindings. An individual wedge was placed under the toe and separately a wedge under the heel. That seemed to work well but was a pain to mount Some shops would cheat and put one long wedge under the whole boot but that changed the flex on the ski. The second method was adjusting the upper cuff of the ski boot to change the angle of the leg and make the sole flat or level. Over the years different methods of making these adjustments to the boot cuff have been tried and that is the type of Canting I use now. I am aware that now some shops grind the sole of the boot for Canting, I am not a fan of this method but that is only me because the interface between the boot and the binding is changed so I think it changes the release of the binding.

 

[razie]

I am aware that now some shops grind the sole of the boot for Canting, I am not a fan of this method but that is only me because the interface between the boot and the binding is changed so I think it changes the release of the binding.

I believe they're supposed to adjust it so the height is the same and level. They shim and grind the top of the lip as well, so it sits flat in the binding.

The method that I've seen working well is with the canting shims and routing the top - you can change them as they wear off.

 

[Tony Warren]

I believe they're supposed to adjust it so the height is the same and level. They shim and grind the top of the lip as well, so it sits flat in the binding.

The method that I've seen working well is with the canting shims and routing the top - you can change them as they wear off.

The cantology system is in my opinion amazing. I need a lot of canting 4.5 degrees on my right and 3 on my left. Without Cantology strips I don't think I could have done it without mounting wedges on all of my skis.

 

[Philpug]

I agree that Canting is very important, I have had Canting done by two different methods. First was years ago when we would place wedges between the ski and the bindings. An individual wedge was placed under the toe and separately a wedge under the heel. That seemed to work well but was a pain to mount Some shops would cheat and put one long wedge under the whole boot but that changed the flex on the ski. The second method was adjusting the upper cuff of the ski boot to change the angle of the leg and make the sole flat or level. Over the years different methods of making these adjustments to the boot cuff have been tried and that is the type of Canting I use now. I am aware that now some shops grind the sole of the boot for Canting, I am not a fan of this method but that is only me because the interface between the boot and the binding is changed so I think it changes the release of the binding.

BOLD BLACK: Even though it says "Canting" on the side of the boot or hinge, that is not canting, that is cuff alignment. This allows moving the cuff to better match the leg angle. Canting is done outside of the boot.

BOLD BLUE: @razie addressed that in the previous post.

 

[Tony Warren]

BOLD BLACK: Even though it says "Canting" on the side of the boot or hinge, that is not canting, that is cuff alignment. This allows moving the cuff to better match the leg angle. Canting is done outside of the boot.

BOLD BLUE: @razie addressed that in the previous post.

I doubt that the change in the angle of the binding makes a material change to the vectors of force on release.

I also entirely agree that changing the cuff alignment is not canting. But getting the cuff on the middle of the tib and fib makes skis quicker edge to edge.

 

[Uncle-A]

The method shown in the photos is interesting and it is similar to putting a wedge between the ski and the binding. What do the binding manufactures say about the routing of the toe and heel of a boot? Does it effect the indemnification of the binding or the tech that does the routing?

Now a lot of people are saying that adjusting the cuff of the boot is not Canting, but for years the boot manufactures have told us that it was Canting and I will not argue over that one. When I changed from the wedge between the ski and the binding to the adjusted cuff it was when I purchased my Raichle Flexon Comp and the boot came with Canting washers and a set of instruction on how to do the Canting. (See my post in "All Things Raichle) I was fortunate enough to have the Raichle Tech Rep in the shop and I grabbed him to do the job that seem to work for me.

 

[razie]

I also entirely agree that changing the cuff alignment is not canting. But getting the cuff on the middle of the tib and fib makes skis quicker edge to edge.

The cuff alignment should be done before canting. it should make the cuff conform to the lower leg.

The method shown in the photos is interesting and it is similar to putting a wedge between the ski and the binding. What do the binding manufactures say about the routing of the toe and heel of a boot? Does it effect the indemnification of the binding or the tech that does the routing?

It's done by the same guys that are certified to mount, setup and inspect your bindings. I'm sure they know what they do... basically the process compensates for the shims and brings the lips back in spec.

I would rate it safer than grinding the entire boot sole at an angle, after which they should lift the top of the lips artificially and then grind them as well, to bring them back to spec and level.

 

[Philpug]

The method shown in the photos is interesting and it is similar to putting a wedge between the ski and the binding. What do the binding manufactures say about the routing of the toe and heel of a boot? Does it effect the indemnification of the binding or the tech that does the routing?.

Good question. The whole reason that the routing of the lug is so the boot will fit into the bindings and the binding will function properly. The toe height gets routed to 20mm and the heel 31mm.

Now a lot of people are saying that adjusting the cuff of the boot is not Canting, but for years the boot manufactures have told us that it was Canting and I will not argue over that one. When I changed from the wedge between the ski and the binding to the adjusted cuff it was when I purchased my Raichle Flexon Comp and the boot came with Canting washers and a set of instruction on how to do the Canting. (See my post in "All Things Raichle) I was fortunate enough to have the Raichle Tech Rep in the shop and I grabbed him to do the job that seem to work for me.

Terminology:

Correct: Cuff Alignment

Incorrect: Canting​

 

[Erik Timmerman]

The method shown in the photos is interesting and it is similar to putting a wedge between the ski and the binding. What do the binding manufactures say about the routing of the toe and heel of a boot? Does it effect the indemnification of the binding or the tech that does the routing?

Some race boots are shipped with a raw over-sized sole and a sticker on them that says they MUST be routered before they can be skied, so I think ski boot companies are OK with it.

 

[KingGrump]

The method shown in the photos is interesting and it is similar to putting a wedge between the ski and the binding. What do the binding manufactures say about the routing of the toe and heel of a boot? Does it effect the indemnification of the binding or the tech that does the routing?

Now a lot of people are saying that adjusting the cuff of the boot is not Canting, but for years the boot manufactures have told us that it was Canting and I will not argue over that one. When I changed from the wedge between the ski and the binding to the adjusted cuff it was when I purchased my Raichle Flexon Comp and the boot came with Canting washers and a set of instruction on how to do the Canting. (See my post in "All Things Raichle) I was fortunate enough to have the Raichle Tech Rep in the shop and I grabbed him to do the job that seem to work for me.

Cantology has a good write up on various method of canting here. It includes the pros & cons. Cuff alignment is also included.

 

[Uncle-A]

Good question. The whole reason that the routing of the lug is so the boot will fit into the bindings and the binding will function properly. The toe height gets routed to 20mm and the heel 31mm.

Terminology:

Correct: Cuff Alignment

Incorrect: Canting​

The photo of the two boots begs me to ask, if the boot that is marked Canting is incorrect are we saying we know more about the boot than the designers and engineers that made it? So many times we fall back on what the manufactures tell us that it seems odd that this time we would not trust what they print on the boot.

 

[Tony Warren]

The photo of the two boots begs me to ask, if the boot that is marked Canting is incorrect are we saying we know more about the boot than the designers and engineers that made it? So many times we fall back on what the manufactures tell us that it seems odd that this time we would not trust what they print on the boot.

Canting boot soles predates cuff alignment. The first boot that I can recall that did cuff alignment was marketed by San Marco in 1975-76. Again, and this is an important distinction; Canting deals with the entire geometry of the relationship between the ski boot and the ski. It achieves this by proving wedges that allow for adjustment for skiers whose natural body position causes them to edge the ski unevenly. Cants create a platform where when the skier applies angulation to the ski the edges do the same thing at the same time. If one is bowlegged or pigeon toed (among many other lower body imperfections) they must edge one ski more than the other by some means to make the ski turn and track properly. Eliminating these issues allows the skier to use few movements to get the skis to edge evenly at the same time. This takes many other balance and positioning problems out of play. I need extreme canting. Without it I cannot turn skis evenly and get each ski to track properly. With cants, I can. Without cants I cannot ski a perfectly carved ski from the start of the turn until the end. With canting and with modern skis, my ski tracks look like I am skiing on a railed track.

Ski boot cuff alignment only deals with the relationship between your lower leg bones and the cuff of the ski. Calling it canting is a historical mistake and is misleading. As has been previously stated by others, it allows for a more comfortable boot (we all want that) and it does a lot to center the cuff of the boot on lower leg bones. This makes the ski boots quicker edge to edge.

Most race boots simply do not have an easy means of cuff alignment. Racers like to have as direct flex control on their very stiff boots so that they can quickly initiate turns and pressure the ski precisely with minimal input. This makes the skis react that much quicker. There are other means that can achieve the goal of cuff alignment without the adjustments to the cuff. On a personal note, I ski in race boots for the same reason I did when I was a kid ski racing. To make my cuff alignment better I bolster my liner without touching the cuff. I have very curved lower leg bones and this works very well.

As to engineers and designers, I think the blame for this misuse of the work 'canting' is more of a marketing thing than anything. It does do good for most skiers and it is easily done by most boot fitters.

 

[Philpug]

The photo of the two boots begs me to ask, if the boot that is marked Canting is incorrect are we saying we know more about the boot than the designers and engineers that made it? So many times we fall back on what the manufactures tell us that it seems odd that this time we would not trust what they print on the boot.

Sorry but you cannot believe everthing that is written on a product. A 100mm boot is usually based upon a 26.5 shell so as you move up and down the width changes. There is times when an 78mm ski might be 79mm even 75mm udnerfoot. Not all 12DIN bindings perform the same. Need I go on?

 

[Uncle-A]

Sorry but you cannot believe everthing that is written on a product. A 100mm boot is usually based upon a 26.5 shell so as you move up and down the width changes. There is times when an 78mm ski might be 79mm even 75mm udnerfoot. Not all 12DIN bindings perform the same. Need I go on?

OK so if it is just marketing what manufacture is the boot in the second photo so we know who not to trust? What is the boot manufacture in the first photo so we know who we can trust.

 

[Suzski]

OK so if it is just marketing what manufacture is the boot in the second photo so we know who not to trust? What is the boot manufacture in the first photo so we know who we can trust.

It seems to me that it is less a matter of "trust" than it is technical accuracy. Some companies are more careful to be technically accurate than others. I think they all should strive for accuracy, but that's my opinion. Marketing departments and engineers are estranged in many companies - not just in the skiing world. In the end, though, if I'm mucking around with the adjustment on my boot to get a more comfortable/effective fit - regardless of what the manufacturer labels it - and it isn't working, I'm going to go to an expert to get the boot adjusted correctly. Then he/she can tell me what to call it.

 

[Philpug]

OK so if it is just marketing what manufacture is the boot in the second photo so we know who not to trust? What is the boot manufacture in the first photo so we know who we can trust.

Quite frankly, sites like this that allow you to ask the questions and where you can clarify and decipher the information.

It seems to me that it is less a matter of "trust" than it is technical accuracy. Some companies are more careful to be technically accurate than others. I think they all should strive for accuracy, but that's my opinion. Marketing departments and engineers are estranged in many companies - not just in the skiing world. In the end, though, if I'm mucking around with the adjustment on my boot to get a more comfortable/effective fit - regardless of what the manufacturer labels it - and it isn't working, I'm going to go to an expert to get the boot adjusted correctly. Then he/she can tell me what to call it.

To @Suzski point, it is not a matter of trust but technical accuracy. Suzuki brings up a point, this is not just limited to the ski world.