Question on ski boot flex and skier development

[surfsnowgirl]

All of the above. New boots, multiple clinics, and hard work. Keep it up and way to go.

I will and thank you

 

[cantunamunch]

You mean this

Yes - but also the analogous mogul skiing stance - and I was hoping to work back from the on-snow-stance to in-shop criteria.

 

[LiquidFeet]

@Tricia, are you still on the Tecnica Mach1 105?

Yes. This is my second season in it, but I'll probably look at replacing it at the end of this season. I'm looking forward to seeing what's new at SIA and trying some new stuff on. There is a good chance I'll get another Tecnica.

That's my boot, the third new boot I've had in three years. I ended up in this boot because it comes in a low volume version that fits my foot, almost. ZipFits finsih the deal.

Its flex, at 105, seems stiffer than the two 110s I had the previous two years (Atomic Redsters and Rossi Heros), but I'm OK with boots that don't want to flex these days. Plus, this boot has the added advantage of fitting my feet and not causing intense pain (as in nerve pain requiring crutches, and black toenails requiring surgery after they grew back ingrown).

Finally - what joy - a boot that fits!

 

[razie]

Yes - but also the analogous mogul skiing stance - and I was hoping to work back from the on-snow-stance to in-shop criteria.

it's harder to work it back to in-shop because when you ski you have so much more leverage in the situations that matter - it's hard to judge until seeing it in action... also the technique... together with this or that body type and I haven't been around long enough to know lots of combinations.

a generic, simple, in-shop cue would be, I guess, where the knees fall and where/how the skier is balanced in a neutral stance.

 

[razie]

I agree all but this part of your post.. Fore/Aft is relative to the pitch/steepness of the terrain you are skiing, and that is variable. Therefore, a boot is only going have perfect fore/aft for the pitch of terrain that perfectly matches the ramp angle of that particular boot.. Add in extension and absorption through bumps/skiing moguls and we're doing quite a bit of boot flexing.

What you're saying would only be true for someone skiing the same pitch/degree/slope all the time.

Also if I had to be forward enough all the time to match the pitch of the steepest terrain I ski, I would be very very very unhappy. Boots are trending toward more upright uppers, and it is a lot easier on the legs for all those times you're *not* skiing.

I just realized you meant that fore/aft demands are depending on the steepness of the terrain (yeah, I tend to read every other word) and I was just saying that choosing boot stiffness is a matter of the terrain I want to ski... but I did not mean steepness - I was just thinking bumps, fluff vs ice and whatever.

How do you see steepness influence fore/aft needs? At least as far as boot choices go?

 

[Monique]

I just realized you meant that fore/aft demands are depending on the steepness of the terrain (yeah, I tend to read every other word) and I was just saying that choosing boot stiffness is a matter of the terrain I want to ski... but I did not mean steepness - I was just thinking bumps, fluff vs ice and whatever.

How do you see steepness influence fore/aft needs? At least as far as boot choices go?

Errm good question. How did I get there? I think I read what @crgildart posted and thought something like "Yeah, that makes sense, because lower legs and upper body are supposed to be at right angles to the pitch." Ish? I think?

 

[Chris Geib]

I agree all but this part of your post.. Fore/Aft is relative to the pitch/steepness of the terrain you are skiing, and that is variable. Therefore, a boot is only going have perfect fore/aft for the pitch of terrain that perfectly matches the ramp angle of that particular boot.. Add in extension and absorption through bumps/skiing moguls and we're doing quite a bit of boot flexing.

What you're saying would only be true for someone skiing the same pitch/degree/slope all the time.

Nah, no boot flexing required.

Move your feet back and forth (or your COM, depending on your frame of reference or perspective) to accommodate terrain and/or movement through the arc.

 

[Chris Geib]

Errm good question. How did I get there? I think I read what @crgildart posted and thought something like "Yeah, that makes sense, because lower legs and upper body are supposed to be at right angles to the pitch." Ish? I think?

So your boot cuff and lower legs are perpendicular to the base of your ski? ...with femurs stacked vertically above them and spine stacked vertically above it all with no flex at the knee or hip?

Hmmm???

Edit: Or are you bent at the knee and waist and hanging off the back of the boot with lower leg and spine perpendicular to the base of the ski?

 

[AmyPJ]

Interesting thread. I've always skied a 90 flex boot, partly because before moving to Utah, I was the proverbial "few days a year" skier. Then last season, I was coming off a tibial plateau fracture and was timid. I realized pretty quickly this season that my 90 flex boots were not providing me very good balance or support. Yesterday, I took out my newly-canted and posted Head B5 Raptor junior race boots--110 flex. (I have ridiculously low-volume feet, hence the race boot.)

Game changing! The lateral support is as much a factor as anything. As you try to get higher edge angles, you really need the lateral stability to hold those angles. At least that's how I perceive it. To be fair, I was skiing in fresh powder and cut up leftovers yesterday, so slower speeds and lower edge angles, but the balance that was provided by the new boots had me smiling. BIG difference! Holy cow, the skis were doing what I told them to! I'm excited to get out there on a hero groomer day with my carving skis.

Another thing I've noticed is HOW a boot flexes. I had some Tecnica Crush's that, as my fitter described very well, were like flexing into a brick. They just didn't flex smoothly, if at all. I struggled a lot with those boots, and they hurt my knees, too. I've skied in 4 different pairs of boots this season, all boots I've bought in the past few years. It's been a really educational experience.

 

[crgildart]

I prefer more forward lean for steeps and less for more moderate terrain, I prefer a more forward, aggressive attack on steeps, more upright on moderate or flat terrain. It's horribly awkward to ski greens in a stiff boot with a high ramp angle. Also, less forward lean for park skiing. Bumps have me favoring something in between.

 

[Ron]

@AmyPJ good post and so happy for you! Yep, I think too often flex is the focus when it's the overall feel of the boot that for most skiers is much more important. This is why I love the BD Doc liners.

 

[KevinF]

Interesting discussion. I've been skiing in a Lange RS130 for years; seems to work for me. Recently I got a touring boot setup (Lange XT 130), although I was warned that an "RS 130 Is not an XT 130" (i.e., not all 130's are created equal).

At any rate, I was skiing / breaking-in my XT 130's the other day and I definitely noticed the difference in fore-aft stiffness... Right when I would expect to be "caught" by my RS130's, the XT130's allowed me to "keep going". It definitely threw off my timing a bit when skiing bumps.

Pretty strange sensation until I adjusted (which only took a run or two). My legs were a bit more tired at the end of the day then they normally would be, probably because the boot wasn't providing as much support as I was used to.

I'd think going from a softer to a stiffer boot would be a bigger adjustment as some of your expecting range-of-motion suddenly disappears.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

I hear many people discuss "flexing the boot in the shop" when buying boots.
Is this a valid criteria for choosing boots?

I have always relied on fitter recommendations and discussions about my skiing ability. I am 5"8, 140, long femurs and ski Lange RS 130 which feels great.

What is the best way to select appropriate boot flex?

 

[James]

The ankle "ROM" criteria for boot stiffness has never made any sense to me.
The usual line is, No Rom - stiff boot. Too much Rom - stiff boot.

So the absolute opposite problems get the same boot flex. That means everyone in the middle might as well throw a dart at a flex chart.
I think the biggest issue with stiff boots is the setup is that much more important. Forward lean and ramp on a soft boot and the body can mush the boot more to a more optimal condition. With a very stiff boot, that's not possible.

 

[Monique]

So your boot cuff and lower legs are perpendicular to the base of your ski? ...with femurs stacked vertically above them and spine stacked vertically above it all with no flex at the knee or hip?

Hmmm???

Edit: Or are you bent at the knee and waist and hanging off the back of the boot with lower leg and spine perpendicular to the base of the ski?

No, neither, but I do recall something about skier angle of attack matching slope, with steeper slopes requiring you to get more forward.

 

[WheatKing]

I hear many people discuss "flexing the boot in the shop" when buying boots.
Is this a valid criteria for choosing boots?
I have always relied on fitter recommendations and discussions about my skiing ability. I am 5"8, 140, long femurs and ski Lange RS 130 which feels great.
What is the best way to select appropriate boot flex?

humm.. flexing the shell in the shop is mostly pointless.. unless your skiing where the temps are 68 degrees F, the shells have a much different flex then when you ski where the temps for me at least are anywhere between 20F ~ -40F usually. The guy that fitted me said that if you can't crush it in the shop, you'll never crush it on the hill where the plastic wants to bend even less, unless of course you are extremely strong or you are doing something wrong.

With that said I'm a lanky light weight (6' - 160) on a Tecnica Cochise 110.. and after a season of em.. love them. I might be able to use a bit more stiffness.. but the fit is perfect after several trips to the fitter.. and i'm more of a finesse than a power type of skier anyway, so it's rare that i'm skiing at 8/10ths let alone 11/10ths.

The right flex..dunno.. whatever works for you.. if you don't know what works for you, then be honest with yourself and find out, and then relay that to a well respected fitter. Here is what I told my fitter "As you can see i'm a middle aged, balding guy who often skis with his kids on greens and easy blues, but also likes to rip the blacks.. some days when skiing with my fellow dad buddies, i think i'm Bode, and some days i think i'm jean luc brassard but that's probably due to the scotch, most days i'm just out enjoying the hills and getting the skis over on edge wherever I can."

If that sounds like you then maybe the Cochise 110 is for you.. If it doesn't than maybe the Cochise 110 is for you as well.. who knows.. talk to your fitter. If you don't have one, find one, listen to them..

 

[Monique]

humm.. flexing the shell in the shop is mostly pointless.. unless your skiing where the temps are 68 degrees F, the shells have a much different flex then when you ski where the temps for me at least are anywhere between 20F ~ -40F usually. The guy that fitted me said that if you can't crush it in the shop, you'll never crush it on the hill where the plastic wants to bend even less, unless of course you are extremely strong or you are doing something wrong.

This is all true, but given that flex numbers are inconsistent and that the actual ability to flex depends on how well the boot conforms to your leg and ankle, you have to ask - how the hell are you supposed to know what will work for you in the wild?

I bought boots a couple of years ago that were the perfect flex for me. The liner was too cold, so I replaced it with my old Intuitions. Instantly, I had trouble skiing in them.

And when it's cold enough that my boots aren't flexing, then I do have trouble skiing well. So flex plays some role. Maybe my need for flex is because I'm an inferior skier, but even if that's the case, I don't think that "suck it up" is the answer. So I'm confused by these claims that flex isn't important.

 

[James]

Something between 100 and 130 works for most.
Get the thing to fit right with proper fore aft setup and make the flex to suit. You're better off a little stiffer and softening.
Fit is far more important.

 

[David Chaus]

Regarding boots getting stiffer in the colder temperatures, wasn't that the original reason Fischer and others developed what is now mostly referred to as heat-moldable shells? As I understand they were trying to develop boot shells that retained the same flex characteristics in the coldest temperatures on the slopes as they do in the shop. A happy side effect is the heat-moldable-ability.

Is this the case? Anyone with experience with Fischer vacuum or other heat moldable shells (Salomon, Atomic, etc) care to comment?

 

[ScotsSkier]

Please remember. It is NOT just the relative flex number, it is also HOW the boot flexes!

As many of you know I have been a vocal proponent of not using too stiff a boot (too stiff - aka the masters syndrome of "must have a 150 boot!"). The past few seasons I have been in an Atomic RT TI and RT STI 130 softened off a bit (I am 165/5'8"). Switching to these from a 150 Dobie made a huge improvement in my skiing and my results. I tried to switch to the Redster last season, started with it at 150 and progressively cut it down (also tried a 110 version). Yet it simply didnt work for me, as it does not have a progressive flex, much more like an on/off switch. (and the reason why so many atomic athletes are in the old boot). This season i switched to the Tecnica R - in this case a rare real deal WC supply boot, not the retail r130 or r150 version - NO flex marking!- as supplied to a select few athletes (not me - I still had to buy them! ) . This is also the same boot as the proper WC doberman boot. Given my flex preferences I though for sure I would be cutting them down (and bought an identical back-up pair so I could experiment). But, surprise, surprise, not required!. they work great for me as is, on everything from my Patrons through to a 195/35 FIS GS! Go figure!!! (normally a too stiff boot is a PITA on a softer fatter ski) And according to my buddies and my athletes I am skiing better than ever. But, the key takeaway for me is as per my original point, it is HOW they flex!