Custom Footbeds Questions

I have skied on Superfeet Full Kork footbeds for many years, but my recent injury has changed my anatomy in my right leg enough that I think I should pursue having new custom footbeds built.

The first time around I wasn't really aware of all of the options available in the custom footbed arena.  This time I am; along with all the different products available are the host of "issues" (some might say religious battles) over the unweighted, semi-weighted, and fully weighted methods that are used.  In researching previous threads the common element is always that the operator building the footbed is the most critical component.  However, there are anatomical issues that must be assessed (moveable or non-moveable arch, pronation, etc.) and the right type of footbed selected to ensure a higher degree of success with the end product.

I'm looking for additonal information and recent personal experience with each of the following systems.  I have included some info about each that I believe is correct.

Masterfit Instaprint CustomForm Insoles - semi-weight bearing method, posted design

SIDAS Conform'able Full Custom - full weight bearing method, non-posted design

Superfeet Kork - unweighted method, posted design

Surefoot Amfit System - full weighted method, semi-posted design

If there are any other fully custom footbed building systems that I haven't listed then please let me know.

Also, what system does Harb use at his alignment center?

^^ Throwout the last one. Pretty useless. Sure we could argue all day long about it.  Maybe it's ok if you get the head honchos to do it at the main store.  That's doubtful, and also there's little precision to it except in the 'exact' machining of the vague impression.

Have had a bunch of the Masterfit ones done. For me, personally, I'd like to go back to the vacuum molded superfeet ones.  Not that the others have been bad, but I think I prefer the vacuum process.

The basic upshot is that it matters way more who's doing it and are they severly hung over?

Except your last option. But you threw that out, right?

I kind of compare the Amfit system to the rest like you would compare digital to analog.  The Amfit uses "hundreds" of rods that come up through the bottom to "map" your foot.  So of course the precision of the system is dependent on how many rods are really used and where they end up hitting on the bottom of your foot.  Maybe they've determined that they have enough to approximate true imprint of your foot, but all the other methods actually form the footbed material directly to your foot during the process.

I've also read that Amfit footbeds are the most rigid (not really the way to go I think these days with the new emphasis on foot/ankle articulation within the boot).  Of course there are plenty of posts that point out the Amfit is "the system" used by many podiatrists and pedorthists who use the Amfit system in their practices.

First, the digital vs analog comarison is bogus.  That's pure nonsense.

There are not "hundreds" of points.  Don't remember how many there were, but I was surprised by how few there were. So you actually have far more "points" in an analog system.

Bottom line, the Amfit system is not a "thousand points of light" it's more like 'dozens of points of vagueness'.

Second. I was told that from those point readings, you are actually fit into a limited # of solutions. The number was very limited, but that detail is sketchy so I won't quote it.

The Surefoot/Amfit whatever you call it has theoretical advantages but they are not realized because of the use of the equipment by the personel and the deficiencies of the measuring system as a whole.

The actual footbed is machined by a small 3d cnc machine.  The bottom of the footbed is flat and the footbed is machined out.  Theoretically, you could do a lot of fiddling and fine tuning in the computer, then machine it out.  You'd have to really know what you were doing though, and the person's foot.  Usually, they rely on the 'dozens of points of vagueness' though for the info. (It's probably like 75 points)  So you'd might as well call GhostBusters. Someone like Mosh could use it for his SBS system and put the angle right in there then machine the whole thing out.

Bottom line: I like the system theoretically, but practially it fails to perform and can be worse than simple premade superfeets or downunders.  On the plus side, you can return it for a refund after 3 trys.  That's what I did.

As for the podiatrist - yeah whatever. Orthotics for shoes seem to be so unrelated to orthotics for skiing.  Makes no sense to me, but I've yet to see anything from a podiatrist that blows me away for a ski boot.  They tend to be more corrective I guess and usually pooh pooh the "hack jobs" done for ski boots.  They've got a good point, but they ought to get on the ball and produce something we can use.  Of course it would probably cost you $450 and good luck on telling them it's not good if you don't like it.

I guess the bottom line is just go get a few made and see what you like.  People get all bent out of shape about footbeds and how long they should last and how they got ripped off etc.  Meanwhile they have six pairs of goggles. If it doesn't work, take it back, correct it or throw it out and move on. Do you hold onto your skis for 10 years?  Your boots? 

Tog - my point about the digital vs. analog is exactly how you explained it.  I wasn't implying that digital is better than analog - it's quite the opposite in many cases.  You're taking a bunch of samples and then interpreting those samples to rebuild the true curve (or whatever) of the actual object, sound, etc.  If you don't take sufficient samples the resulting "rebuild" of the curve could be missing critical data.

The Surefoot thing really isn't even on my consideration list, but I threw it in there for completeness since it is one of the systems and is an option.

Tell me more about the Instaprint process.  Why is that you now say you prefer the unweighted Supefeet method?

I just remembered another one - DFP footbeds.  The ones my sister-in-law got seem fairly floppy and unsupportive, but maybe there are other models/options available from DFP.

I wouldn't say I prefer the Surefoot vacuum system at all. Just it's been quite awhile since I last had one and in the interim I've had many - at least 6 pair of other systems. Though pretty much they were the same one. Did have a footbed made by stick your foot in foam, then make plaster, then make foot bed technique also.  Then I also had one by Jeff Rich who made a plaster foot but I can't remember what he used for the mold.  That bed got toasted by a dryer.

Here's the deal with most of the non-vacuum systems.  This does not include the plaster ones though.

The person who's doing it pushes stuff under your foot as you stand there.  What that stuff is varies.  That conformable thing , not sure it's just them, uses very fine sand then when it's ready vacuums the air out so it gets rigid.  Then you put the heated blank on it and stand on it and 'mold' it to your foot.  So there's a lot of fudging room there. Other's use like little microshperes mixed with vaseline or something like that. Seriously.

So the upshot is it really comes down to how it's done.  The same person probably can not make the exact same footbed twice in a row.  It's probably close enough, or maybe not.

The guy who made my last Surefoot Kork was really good though totally unknown in an out of the way shop.  Go figure.

Fwiw, I believe Gregg Hoffmann is also using surefoot vacuum again, though possibly in combo with the other master print system.

Then there's the solution of just getting an Intuition liner and not using a footbed!  The bottom also molds to your foot.  Depends on the foot.  Some people "can't ski" with a foot bed.

Pet peeve:  Freakin boot fitters who take your footbed and without asking, start grinding away on it to give you more room or what ever.  Gee, that's great! You've just ruined it.  Btw, it's not just "new guys" who do this.  Stop It!!!

Thanks for that info Tog.

Your post reminded me of a whole bunch of other issues that I've thought about before.  Like the fact that most of these footbeds are built without any consideration of the bootboard they're being installed on top of.  Seems to me that what's going on in the foundation of the boot has a direct impact on the final fit of the footbed.  Some boots have perfectly flat bootboards, but many do not (including my Flexons).  I actually ground the bootboard on my Kryptons flat to avoid issues it was introducing in my footbeds.

Another issue is the volume of the footbed, sometimes a low volume footbed makes the most sense to avoid messing with the overall fit of the boot, but sometimes a higher volume footbed will actually solve some problems.  It seems that many of the custom footbed systems don't provide a lot of customization in the area of  volume, but maybe I'm just misinformed. 

The comments above are why I suggest that most people go to shops with a few good bootfitters and that use a few different footbeds.  Sure, once you get dialed in you don't need a choice but when you are still experimenting you need to have some options.  Every set of feet is different, there are some issues where a podiatrist with some ski background can do the trick.  Some need unweighted molding, some do better with a fully weighted molding.  It's kind of like everything, what works for me might not work for you.  The problem is that it takes years to truly be an expert with a particular type of footbed and by the time you have one dialed in you are hooked on that type.  Most bootfitters are great in one type and may know one or two others but are rarely experts in several...shop around

all good info.

Also keep in mind that even with many systems, and the weighted debate, sometimes different systems can produce the same footbed anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler 

 

Also, what system does Harb use at his alignment center?

Footworx. Semiweight bearing, very soft posted - pre-molded but conformable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler 

 

Thanks for that info Tog.

 

Your post reminded me of a whole bunch of other issues that I've thought about before.  Like the fact that most of these footbeds are built without any consideration of the bootboard they're being installed on top of.  Seems to me that what's going on in the foundation of the boot has a direct impact on the final fit of the footbed.  Some boots have perfectly flat bootboards, but many do not (including my Flexons).  I actually ground the bootboard on my Kryptons flat to avoid issues it was introducing in my footbeds.

 

Another issue is the volume of the footbed, sometimes a low volume footbed makes the most sense to avoid messing with the overall fit of the boot, but sometimes a higher volume footbed will actually solve some problems.  It seems that many of the custom footbed systems don't provide a lot of customization in the area of  volume, but maybe I'm just misinformed. 

 

 Well now you're getting into an area of cost and what people expect.

People  basically expect everything done for 99$.  That's not going to happen.

Still they'll complain, so bootfitters basically get trashed either way.  This just opens the door to poor work.

I skied the Superfeet full Kork for years but switched to the half Kork a few years back.  Same arch support but they seem warmer and much more comfortable.  If you are not racing or a super high level skier you may want to stay with Superfeet and go with the half Kork.

Seems like quite the passionate debate.  I have had a set of Amfit footbeds that have worked well for me with minor mods for the last 10 years and 3 pairs of boots. I have no idea about the theories discussed here, but can tell you that:  a) I went to a highly recommended bootfitter (not Surefoot) to start with; b) was charged $140 for a bootfitting/footbed 10 years ago; c) have gotten free tweaks from this bootfitter over the last 10 years, including minor mods to footbed/shell; and d) when I ski, I don't need to tweak my boots; they're comfortable and perform well.  I got my money's worth, and the Amfit product performed well for me.

BTW, I tried the non-custom footbeds at a certain point, and I'd rather have a stick in the eye.  YMMV...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler 

 

Your post reminded me of a whole bunch of other issues that I've thought about before.  Like the fact that most of these footbeds are built without any consideration of the bootboard they're being installed on top of.  Seems to me that what's going on in the foundation of the boot has a direct impact on the final fit of the footbed.  Some boots have perfectly flat bootboards, but many do not (including my Flexons).  I actually ground the bootboard on my Kryptons flat to avoid issues it was introducing in my footbeds.

 

Another issue is the volume of the footbed, sometimes a low volume footbed makes the most sense to avoid messing with the overall fit of the boot, but sometimes a higher volume footbed will actually solve some problems.  It seems that many of the custom footbed systems don't provide a lot of customization in the area of  volume, but maybe I'm just misinformed. 

 

Totally agree with this. I'm not sure why, but it seems like Mosh with his SBS system is one of the few who talk about the bootboard.  He actually measures the angle of it (lateral).  The bootboard can be all over the place.  Plus, is it even flat longitudinally (front - back)? There's a lot of assumptions there.   How does the bootboard interface with the shell? When weighted it may collapse a bit in the center or other spots.

I once started to make my own footboards.  It was fairly complicated process, pouring silicone into the boot and taking that out then making a mold of it, then grinding it down and making a mold of that.  Didn't have the right materials in the final molding process though and eventually the project got sidetracked.  I think all my molds have disappeared.

I will say that looking closely at all that, the Lange bootboard was pretty appalling. Not much precision there at all. I know the toe area was sunken - had a dip on my pair.  One boot was more than the other. They're also fairly loose in there.  That was the idea - to tighten up the connection in hopes of getting better response.

Sven Coomer  (?) used to make replacement bootboards, 'zeppas',  for Langes but I believe those are long gone.

So basically the boot needs to be looked at as an entire system.  This rarely happens though.  Part of it again is cost.  People don't want to hear that their brand new boots need tweaking in areas other than fit.  People don't want to hear that the boot will need work to mate the new footbed to the boot.  Bootfitters are stuck in the middle.  I'd say the chances of your average rec. skier getting a complete work up is close to zero. Even people who know have to discuss - or argue their way through the process.

It would be nice to see some of the new measuring tools used for boots in a meaningful way.  The whole Tekscan pressure system has been around for awhile, like 15 years.  That's the thing where you stand on a pad and a computer screen shows the pressure distribution in colors. I'm not sure it's very useful, and probably lots of shops agree because you see it less and less and most of the custom fitters have never used it. One can get lost in questionable data that may have little relevance to performance. 

Why not have something that shows the actual relationships of the important surfaces of the boot like the sole, bootboard, lower shell, cuff, etc.  Then you'd know what you were dealing with.  A lot of this is chasing one's tail around.  The people who've been around are used to the chase and can get somewhere quickly.

Tog - interesting timing on your last post.  Yesterday I decided to build a replacement bootboard (zeppa) that would fit my Flexons.

I'll post pics later, but here's what I did.  I had a ton of Superfeet Kork footbeds laying around because I purchased a bunch of the blanks off eBay for cheap.  I have made quite a few Superfeet Kork footbeds myself using a semi-weighted method, but none of them are built with a truly scientific system to ensure the proper correction.  I mostly just built them for comfort and additional support.  Anyhow, I decided to take all the Kork material and create replacement bootboards.  So I removed the Outlast fabric layer and combined the Kork material from a couple pairs (heat the Kork to 275 F for 10 minutes then you can knead it like dough).  From there I built a new blank with a very slight amount of ramp, but completely flat on top.  I then cut out new bootbards based on the shape of the originals.  They came out great and I'm really impressed with the improvement of the fit in my shells.

Tog's post though has me second guessing the accuracy of the alignment of these new bootboards within the shells (I am familiar with the SBS stuff and that method).  I don't think I have quite the right tools to really check the relationship of the bootboards to the shells though.  At this point I haven't "heat fit" the new bootboards to the bottom of the shells, but I'm considering it.   Heat fitting them may improve how they "interface" within the shells.

Maybe you could heat that stuff and then jam it into the bottom of the shell.  This would be easier if you remove the upper cuff and use a boot spreader for the lower shell.  Once you get the interface with the bottom done you could shape the top part where your foot goes. 

It's pretty much a given that trying to copy what was there will not result in a precise fit.  The problem with a precise fit though is you might not be able to get them out with the boot put together.

Here are some pics of the original bootboard and the Kork one I built:

Original Flexon bootboard:

Custom Kork bootboard:

Overhead shot of both:

Although it looks like a drastic reduction in heel height it doesn't actually play out that way because of how the Flexon shell supports the bootboard.  The replacement custom bootboard heel sits at exactly the same height as the original.  The big change is that the custom bootboard does not have that "shelf" that leads to the problems with footbeds (by overly exaggerating the arch of the footbed).

Another advantage of the custom bootboards is that they could be ground for stance correction if necessary (kind of like what the SBS system does and other alignment specialists).  The original Flexon bootboard can't be modified (at least I don't think so) since there's really nothing there to grind (it's very thin).

I'm also hoping that this new bootboard is warmer (not an issue for Thermoflex liners, but for my ZipFits it is a problem) and is slightly more forgiving than hard plastic (it compresses a bit and also should absorb vibrations).

BTW (to put this thread a little more back on the original track) - I have decided on which footbed system and shop to use.  After many discussions with the available footbed makers in my area I built a list in priority order:

1. Bud Heishman - Snowind Sports

2. Chris Brown - Harb Skier Alignment Center

3. Lee Kinney - The Custom Foot

4. Jeff Bergeron - Boot Fixation

I think Bud really has the "whole" system put together and considers every aspect of the interaction between all the elements. Unfortunately I'm not going to get to see Bud this season since I'm not going to ESA Big Sky.

The Harb system also steps it up a notch by taking into consideration all of the alignment variables (maybe not quite as thoroughly as Bud though).  Their assessment procedures seem to be fairly complete with a ton of measurements and exercises they have you go through. They also use a semi-weighted system which I feel provides the best of both worlds (fully weighted versus unweighted).  Their alignment center is about 45 minutes from my house.

Lee Kinney has 30 years of experience and uses the SIDAS system using Masterfit Instaprint blanks.  The posting methods they employ seem to be able to take into account both the control necessary for resolving foot/leg alignment issues while also being able to handle the bootboard foundation the footbed will be riding on.  They are very close by to my house.

I never got to speak with Jeff directly, but I know that he uses the Masterfit system, has a phenomenal reputation (based on feedback from many of the people I've skied with), and knows the Flexon inside out.  Unfortunately Jeff is out in Breckenridge so it's not a real convenient place for me to get my fitting issues handled.

So I've decided to go with the Harb assessment and footbeds.  The tech geek in me really likes all the science and measurements they use in a very well-defined system and procedure.  I think there's a little less "art" going on here and more "science" after speaking with Chris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler 

 

The Harb system also steps it up a notch by taking into consideration all of the alignment variables (maybe not quite as thoroughly as Bud though).  Their assessment procedures seem to be fairly complete with a ton of measurements and exercises they have you go through. They also use a semi-weighted system which I feel provides the best of both worlds (fully weighted versus unweighted).  Their alignment center is about 45 minutes from my house.

 

So I've decided to go with the Harb assessment and footbeds.  The tech geek in me really likes all the science and measurements they use in a very well-defined system and procedure.  I think there's a little less "art" going on here and more "science" after speaking with Chris.

I think you'll like the result...I know I like mine made by Maria Fermoile, The Ski Wizard in Fresno, a PMTS instructor and Ph.D physical therapist. 

I'm sure a lot of ppl are going to call me crazy, but for me I havent found any advantages to having any type of custom footbed vs the stock footbed. I've used surefoot, conformables, off the shelf superfeet, and none of them work any better than the stock footbed that comes with my lange's. I'm sure if I had pronation problems or other foot issues, then a custom footbed would help. I'm flat footed and the customs dont do a thing for me. In fact I prefer the stock footbed which is soft & has minimal support because it allows me to articulate my foot/ankle.

So I guess what I'm saying is not everyone needs or can benefit from a custom footbed. It all depends upon your foot.

wizard - that's a very good point and another one of the reasons that I chose Harb's system over some others.  One of the first things Chris said is that the purpose of their rather detailed assessment is to determine whether or not the skier/athlete even needs to use a custom footbed at all.  So here's a potential customer on the phone with them who is ready to spend substantial dollars and they're willing to forego the sale if they don't see a need for the footbed.  That was an encouraging response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler 

 Although it looks like a drastic reduction in heel height it doesn't actually play out that way because of how the Flexon shell supports the bootboard.  The replacement custom bootboard heel sits at exactly the same height as the original.  The big change is that the custom bootboard does not have that "shelf" that leads to the problems with footbeds (by overly exaggerating the arch of the footbed).

Yes, it looks very different! Will the heel end be held in place/supported somehow so it doesn't collapse in the center?  I guess that bootboard is the reason you just mold the entire Intuition liner with no footbed in a Flexon - or whatever it's called now.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard 

  

So I guess what I'm saying is not everyone needs or can benefit from a custom footbed. It all depends upon your foot.

I'd agree I guess.  That's what I've heard from others.  I've tried it and doesn't work so well for me.  I also accidentally tried skiing a whole day with no bootboard and no footbed.  Makes the boot much stiffer, gave me some blisters, was interesting but not recommended.

Minor bump for an update.

Noodler,

Did you go through the process and what were the results?

I've always considered getting a through review / allignment and it would be of interest to know how Harb Allignment works.

This past Sunday I had Chris Brown at the Harb Alignment center in Dumont perform the initial assessment.  It took about 30 minutes and Chris took a bunch of measurements of my feet, legs, and all their related angles.  Everything was meticulously recorded in their computer program and at the end Chris gave me a summary assessment of what they would like to do for me.  My accident has definitely changed my right leg and it's kinda funny, but it's actually now in better alignment than my uninjured right leg.

Tonight I'm going back to have the custom footbeds built and have the alignment setup.  I should get to ski on the new setup this weekend.

One of the things I found odd (and a little disconcerting) is that Chris wasn't too keen on the idea of manipulating the bootboard (zeppa) to address alignment issues (they do alter it for fit issues).  They like to do all correction in the footbed through posting.  I stated that I was concerned with how that process will effect the fit of my foot in my liners, but he assured me that this was the best way to handle it and they have some fairly prestigious clientele.

I had built my replacement bootboards (using Superfeet Kork) with a 3 degree in-boot cant (a la Eric Ward's Shim Balance System), but Chris said that they won't be able to work with that in my boots.  So I burned down the bootboards I had already built (and a couple more sets of Superfeet Kork footbeds) and built 3 new pairs of almost perfectly flat cork bootboards for my Flexons.  I figure that with 3 sets Chris can do all the grinding he needs to to get the fit right after the footbeds have been built.  I'm just concerned about the meshing of the footbeds with my ZipFit liners since those liners are very "picky" about where your foot is positioned in them (especially in the vertical plane near the heel).

The stock Flexon bootboards (in older Flexons) is just a plastic thing that doesn't lend itself well to any kind of manipulation through grinding (you could attach stuff to them though).  They also have a good amount of ramp and a "shelf" from the heel down to the forefoot.  Harb's system wants all of that gone so I decided to try to save some time and money by building the replacement bootboards myself.  Chris said that he could build them in foam, but hopefully tonight when he sees the new ones I built he'll agree that they can be used.

Probably a little late for this now, but I had the Instaprint footbeds done by Bud Heishman.  I don't have much to compare to, but they certainly put me in a more secure place in my boots and Bud posted and ground the footbed to work with some boot planing that was done at the same time.  Bottom line for me was I finally found a balanced point where both edges of my skis were equally engaging, and the footbed was not so rigid, so the flexion in my ankle had sufficient effect to engage the edges without resorting to knee angulation.  The nice part about working with Bud is of course his ability to do on-slope assessment as a Level III instructor as well as bootfitter.  So he made some tweaks to the fit as a result of that; although I'd have to say pilot error was probably more the issue.

To your list above, I would have added Greg Hoffman at Vail and Jim Lindsay in Aspen.  I believe Greg worked to develop much of what became the Harb system some years ago.  Anyway, you are fortunate to live in an area where there is a relative abundance of boot alignment talent, as we are here in the Tahoe region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

 

I once started to make my own footboards.  It was fairly complicated process, pouring silicone into the boot and taking that out then making a mold of it, then grinding it down and making a mold of that.  Didn't have the right materials in the final molding process though and eventually the project got sidetracked.  I think all my molds have disappeared.

I will say that looking closely at all that, the Lange bootboard was pretty appalling. Not much precision there at all. I know the toe area was sunken - had a dip on my pair.  One boot was more than the other. They're also fairly loose in there.  That was the idea - to tighten up the connection in hopes of getting better response.

Sven Coomer  (?) used to make replacement bootboards, 'zeppas',  for Langes but I believe those are long gone.

 

I found that the process of building a replacement bootboard using Superfeet Kork material works out really well.  If you can find "blanks" on eBay for cheap (like I did) then you'll get enough of the material to build some nice custom bootboards.  I would like to find another source for this cork material though.

The process itself was fairly simple - heat up a pile of the cork to 300 F for 10 minutes and make a big ball out of it.  You can knead it like dough to give it a uniform consistency and the roll it out into a blank that you cut the bootboards out of.  This takes a few heating sessions to get the ball completely rolled at and at the right thickness.  I rolled a small degree of ramp into the blank so that the bootboards would fit into the boots properly and be the right height for my heel and toes.  Once the blank is cool I just traced the old bootboards onto the blank and cut them out with a utility knife.  Then I re-heated the rough bootboards for 10 min at 300 F again.  While hot I put them into the bottom of my boots, then covered them with a bontex shim and pressed the cork into the bottom of the boots.  Once cool the bootboards pop right out (they shrink a bit when cooling).  Then I ground the top surface flat, heated them again, put them in the boots, and this time put my feet in the boots (with the liner of course).  This step ensures that everything is fitting OK (in case they're too think somewhere).  If I think they need any additional grinding that would be the final step. 

This method produces a bootboard with an exact mold of the boot in their bottom so they interface perfectly.  I'll post some shots later.

Cirque - Bud absolutely was my top pick, but I probably won't see him again until next season.  As far as I'm concerned he seems to have the most thorough approach and is assessing all of the "system".  Bud's probably one of the best reasons to attend an ESA.

Noodler,

If I were shopping for footbeds I would have followed exactly the same approach as you did with a similar list.

I would like to respond to Tog's comments on SUREFOOT. I have used a number of aftermarket off the shelf footbeds for ski, golf and daily use. SUREFOOT is my only experience with custom orthotics. I found their process professional and their products functional. I later had boot work done by Greg Hoffman and he posted the footbeds and flattened both the bottom of my boots and the bottom of the SUREFOOT footbeds. He did not comment on their process or suggest replacing them.

I later had additional alignment work done. The boot fitter checked out the SUREFOOT and thought they were holding my foot properly. He too made and sold custom footbeds and did not even bring up the subject of replacing the SUREFOOT's.

If I were to start again I would use the process you're using but I did want to note that SUREFOOT evidently does provide a good product for some of there customers. Mine fit good, feel good, provide good support and do not seem overly rigid.

Steve