Boot Canting and Balancing

[Uncle-A]

That could have happened at the shop, What boot is it?

Wish I could remember but that was back in the 1980's but I do know they were provided by the manufacture not the shop.

 

[Philpug]

Wish I could remember but that was back in the 1980's but I do know they were provided by the manufacture not the shop.

Without knowing what boot it was, we can only speculate. There were some boots that had an integrate footboard and there is also a chance that it was missed, I have seen that happen too, Aldo could have been going on a wine & cigarette break.

 

[Eric Ward]

We are on the same page. How can I get you to set up my foot position inside the boot for me? I suspect that this will change my cantology stuff too.

Cheers,

Tony

Well you can do it yourself, get a starter kit from the web site and it will walk you through the process. No guru necessary. Its only right when it feels right to you. I expect the cantology will not change if you like it the way it is.

 

[Uncle-A]

That could have happened at the shop, What boot is it?

Technical Boot, I do not think any manufactures are using the flat plastic base inside the shell and under the liner any longer.

 

[Uncle-A]

If I look in my junk box I may find an example of one of theses inserts. I just never knew if they made a difference when skiing, but the boot manufactures said they worked. Have any of our members had any experience with inside the boots cents?

Internal Cants

• Uncle-A
• Aug 27, 2016

These inserts are 3 MM on the arch side and 1 MM on the outside. It may be equal to a number 1 Cant but when it is in between the shell and the liner does it work?

 

[Philpug]

If I look in my junk box I may find an example of one of theses inserts. I just never knew if they made a difference when skiing, but the boot manufactures said they worked. Have any of our members had any experience with inside the boots cents?

Internal Cants

• Uncle-A
• Aug 27, 2016

These inserts are 3 MM on the arch side and 1 MM on the outside. It may be equal to a number 1 Cant but when it is in between the shell and the liner does it work?

This looks like a full foot varus, I believe this is the type of system Eric uses, I could be wrong. He might be able to varify. Will this work for you? You say the boot manufacturer says they work, what boot manufacturer? The only boot I could see these coming with with be a Daleboot.

Where is boot fitting, a millimeter is a mile, fitting device that will take up an average of 2mm of volume under the boot, even forgetting the varus aspect, makes me question if this is the right boot in the first place, it is big red flag.

 

[Tricia]

If I look in my junk box I may find an example of one of theses inserts. I just never knew if they made a difference when skiing, but the boot manufactures said they worked. Have any of our members had any experience with inside the boots cents?

Internal Cants

• Uncle-A
• Aug 27, 2016

These inserts are 3 MM on the arch side and 1 MM on the outside. It may be equal to a number 1 Cant but when it is in between the shell and the liner does it work?

That is very similar to what Eric put in my boots at Aspen during an ESA. I skied two runs with it in my boot and had to take it out because it didn't work for me. It was a few months later that I was measured at Big Sky ESA and had my boots planed and canted on the outside.
I know of a few people who have used Eric's system and benefited from it, but it clearly wasn't the right option for me.

 

[markojp]

Not all zeppas are flat, that's for sure.

 

[Philpug]

Not all zeppas are flat, that's for sure.

There are really only a few that are flat.

 

[Jed Peters]

Funny. My new boots require planing--whether you need it or not. This is my first of this "type" which is weird to me...the boot is NOT DIN compatible out the gate.

I think this is an interesting concept---full featureless to the boot fitter.

That said, I noticed one thing about the ease of canting with a "shim kit" that's available now...my wife simply had to get her toe and heel re-planed, and that straightened her right out after putting shims under the boot sole with a cantology product. Nice thinking when your boot doesn't have a hard sole (very few do anymore).

 

[Philpug]

Funny. My new boots require planing--whether you need it or not. This is my first of this "type" which is weird to me...the boot is NOT DIN compatible out the gate.

I think this is an interesting concept---full featureless to the boot fitter.

That said, I noticed one thing about the ease of canting with a "shim kit" that's available now...my wife simply had to get her toe and heel re-planed, and that straightened her right out after putting shims under the boot sole with a cantology product. Nice thinking when your boot doesn't have a hard sole (very few do anymore).

Your Lange ZB's cone with an oversized lug that requires routing, not planing, this design does make planing easier though. This has been is an advantage of this design but with the advent of Cantology shims, that your wife got makes canting much easier.

 

[Jed Peters]

Your Lange ZB's cone with an oversized lug that requires routing, not planing, this design does make planing easier though. This has been is an advantage of this design but with the advent of Cantology shims, that your wife got makes canting much easier.

I did not know that...I thought the soles REQUIRED planing, not just toe routing. Interesting.

Regarding the Cantology product, I can see that being a new "staple" for shops moving forward. I mean, with the ease with which you're able to figure this out...why not anymore? And yet, it might as well be completely foreign to most.

 

[Philpug]

I did not know that...I thought the soles REQUIRED planing, not just toe routing. Interesting.

Regarding the Cantology product, I can see that being a new "staple" for shops moving forward. I mean, with the ease with which you're able to figure this out...why not anymore? And yet, it might as well be completely foreign to most.

No, it makes the planing easier. There are people who are neutral in a boot and do not require canting.

As far as Cantology, it would be great to see it as the standard in the industry but there are still companies who do not subscribe. HERE is the list of Cantology compatible boots.

 

[skibob]

...my wife simply had to get her toe and heel re-planed, and that straightened her right out .

Ouch! That sounds painful

[I so can't believe that I beat @Philpug AND @crgildart to this joke]

 

[chemist]

A subject close to my heart. Some general observations:

1) The skiing public's general view on ski boots: A ski boot is a type of boot. And just as most people can get by pretty well walking in, say, a hiking boot without custom orthotics, most can get by pretty well skiing in a ski boot w/o custom alignment; the latter is only really necessary for those seeking very high performance, or those with special structural issues.
The (IMO) accurate view on ski boots: A ski boot is itself a highly-constraining orthotic device. And just as any orthotic device needs its alignment to be customized to the wearer, so too do ski boots. Every ski boot has a different stock alignment, and unless yours happens to match its, you're going to be struggling.

2) If you can comfortably ski on one ski, and can comfortably made edge-locked hip-angulated carved turns on two skis (getting the skis out from under you), then one of the best tests for whether your lateral alignment is dialed is whether you can make linked edge-locked carved turns, with good angles, on just one ski. Before my last alignment, which was the best I'd ever had done, I was able to do the first and second, but not the third. Now, with proper lateral alignment, I can (alas, we realized fore-aft alignment is not achievable for me in these boots, so I'm going to have to switch boots and go through the process again): https://player.vimeo.com/video/165380070?autoplay=1&loop=1

3) Fore-aft alignment is just as important as lateral alignment (Bud H, with whom I traded fore-aft equipment measurements back in the 90's, has been very good at bringing this to the attention of the ski community), but trickier to dial in.

4) In-shop alignment tests can get you close but, for the subset of skiers that are seeking high performance, they're not definitive (especially for fore-aft, which typically requires on-snow testing). IMO, a key test to determine if a shop caters to performance-oriented skiers is if they ask you to send them post-alignment video so they can check their work and have you tweak it as necessary.

5) Alignment is as much art as science. We know this because, if it were a science, it would be so well understood that we would all clearly know just how canting and orthotics should be done, not have several different schools of thought on the subject. The tricky part, then, is finding someone whose methodology works for you. For my case, I've found the standard methodology (use T-square or plumb box to measure where knee is positioned laterally relative to boot, etc.) doesn't give accurate results. My alignment specialist also makes many static measurements, but then additionally incorporates a dynamic balance methodology (the same methodology my PT, who I think is very sophisticated, uses to assess my knee/hip/ankle function): She has me stand, on one leg, in my ski socks on one of the orthotics (which she's just molded), and puts tiny shims under it, at various points, until my wavering is minimized; repeat for the other side. Then, once the shims have been incorporated into the orthotics, we put them in the boots and repeat this approach to determine how the boots should be canted. Of course, there's more to it, including cuff alignment (the cuffs aren't align-able on my boots, but one of them needed to be, so she substituted a cuff bolt from a boot which does have adjustable cuffs, and presto, the cuffs were aligned).

 

[pirouette]

To give some numerical significance to the conversation In more than 16 years of testing literally many thousands of people from all walks of life The amount of pronation that I measure shakes out in the following way. The bell curve goes from 0-6 degrees. From 0-2.5 degrees the functional zone. Only 10% of people off the street will fall into this category. From 2.5-4.5 degrees. 55% of people will fall into this moderate category. From 4.5-6 accounts for 35% of people are severely pronated. So aprox 90% of people fall into the moderate to severe pronation zone. So The ski business has this small problem of 80% of beginners never ski after their first try. Well if 90% of people simply cant balance functionally and skiing is basically balance its no surprise we have such a huge fall out rate.

As to the supinated, well this is one thing we have been a bit off base about largely. In dynamic evaluations what we see is both pronation and supination working together its not a static monolithic understanding of lets say building a house. If a house is leaning over, you wedge it up straight. The body does not work like that. So to keep it simple. Pronation and supination work together, in equal and opposite amounts to create and sustain balance. The more you pronate the more you will supinate. Its more like breathing, the deeper you breathe in, the longer you will breathe out. So to look at these to movements as things that exist in isolation of the other, does not do justice to their relationship to each other. That said everyone asks that same question. So its a mater of looking deeper into the issue. There is a book that needs to be written on this subject of feet by itself.

Simply put the foot is the key to skiing and so little is really understood about them. The entire conversation seems to revolve around arch supports. Its the beginning and end of the conversation. Well the Romans taught us a lot, and one of the best lessons they passed down was that an arch is defined as a self supporting structure. So if it is self supporting, why would it need to be supported? The term "arch support" itself is redundant. This is why the orthotic, and alignment conversation is so often hit and miss. In my approach its get the ski flat and then get the foot flat. thats it. The fore aft is also key but its not often enough that I mess with it. Usually when there is noticeable flexibility issues.

So in short, its quite easy. We know where good skiers are the target is near 1.5 degrees of pronation. If you are not there from as an accident of birth you will have to work to make up for it. Oh and boot grinding does not fix this problem its a seporate problem from the cuff tibial alignment.

Yep still living the dream all good...

New to this site, not a pro, haven't skied seriously in years, mostly because what used to be my greatest pleasure became frustrating and just no fun. I stumbled across this thread on a Google search and was disappointed that it only seemed to go a week a year ago. But it addresses my issue and some of the comments were spot on to things that I've never seen outside of my own musings. So here goes:
I started skiing (bumming) @ Squaw many years ago and even with youth, athleticism and 5-6 days a week all season, I was struggling. I knew why; all I had to do was look down and see my skis to deduce that. Start of my second year I got my skis canted (Kennedy?, most of the shops carried them) and it transformed my skiing. Not perfect, but so much improved that I thought it was. [Cantology seems to allude to a similar product on their website, but offers no links beyond that].
Got out of the sport for a few years, and when I went back, things had changed. Binding cants were gone, the shops said that there was a liability issue because the 'ramp angle' of release induced by the cants impeded the true lateral release of the bindings. Sounded ridiculous considering the number of degrees involved and lack of any consideration of the biomechanics that necessitated the cants to begin with, but oh well.
What replaced that was the cuff 'cant' feature, which as noted in multiple posts here, was not a canting system. And then custom foot beds came along, which still get claims of addressing the problem. They don't. Eric's post above addresses part of the reason. "The term "arch support" itself is redundant." I actually take a drill and disk and grind them out of my shoewear.
And this is where I see the unaddressed problem. I don't know the SX92, but I had a boot that had an adjustable boot board (not foot bed) long ago. It was a K2 (pic here of me with thumb on nose and fingers wiggling to the young K2 rep who told me recently that they'd never made a boot prior to those of recent years), neon lime green back when that got a lot of askance looks, and, with qualifications, a great boot. The sole had 4 metal collars set into the plastic with (I think), allen head set screws in them. These interfaced the boot board inside and could be adjusted to cant and induce more or less forward lean. That worked pretty well - I played with that part a lot and was impressed with how it could change both comfort and performance.
Back to the recent past and present and some of the posts here. The commonality of the SX92 and my old K2's was their rear entry. This is where the post that called this an insoluble engineering problem may be right (though I hope not). If your stance standing on a level surface is pronated and you don't have trouble walking, then your hips, knees, ankles, etc. are probably working in concert for your individual structure. The reason I find that (even custom) foot beds don't work for me is that I like to ski fast/aggressive (less and less every year, but still...) and that means overlap boots and a tight fit. The K2's and I'm assuming the SX92's could allow for stance at the foot board and the liner would mostly adjust to the differences in instep shape that that induced. No matter what your foot bed shape and even with lots of arch support (no thank you), a stiffer overlap boot will flatten out your foot, dragging your knees to the center.
If you follow this with sole grinding or Cantology style wedging, you can get your ski flat, but, and I think this is part of what Eric is saying, your feet are in an unnatural position relative to where they are in a natural stance. This puts strain on knees, hips, etc., especially in the flexing motions necessary to ski. For those here who accuse the manufacturers of turning a blind eye to this, I'm not sure I blame them. But skiing comfortably and hard should not be mutually exclusive. If the accommodation of a rear entry and the performance of an overlap are so far mutually exclusive for the (majority?) of people without lucky genes, who's going to take on that challenge?

 

[JTurner]

Just get footbeds with proper varus/valgus and arch support for your physiology, and use a boot that’s a low enough volume fit that you don’t have to buckle the bottom two buckles very tight. Then your foot won’t flatten and pronate/supinate/whatever and mess up your knee tracking.

 

[Philpug]

@pirouette thank you for joining the conversation. One of the pluses of these conversations and threads as compared to say say Facebook ones is that they are searchable and come up when needed. What is done inside of the boot and outside of the boot create different results. With all of the boot options there ate out there now there is little reason that someone cannot find a boot that is comfortable yet meet the performance needs that they are looking for.