2012 Fischer Vacuum Ski Boot: A Game Changer - Page 37

I note that neither side here seems very good at "moving on," but perhaps for different reasons. The supporters seem unable to to envision that perhaps their own "spot on" fit experiences are not generalizable to the set of all other skiers, so they assume that anyone who disagrees more than once is a hater. On the other hand, SZK and others who are doubters may be determined to get their point acknowledged, even in the face of resistance, by again offering up personal fit experiences - or melting a single pair of boots - as evidence. But I notice either way that we're consistently conflating personal fit experience with judgements about a total technology. 

Look, whether you think these boots are the second coming, or yet another example of premature technological ejaculation, your individual personal experience with these boots (and yes, this includes trying to fit a few score people into them for a season) has zero, 0, nada significance toward figuring out whether the technology ulitmately works or not. As in, over thousands of different feet skiing them for tens of thousands of days. We do not have enough data points to generalize sh*t. Nor will sales figures help for a while, since they're driven for a season or two more by marketing buzz and early adopters than the actual incidence of good versus bad outcomes. That idea - that if people buy them, they must be good - is an ad populum fallacy; go check it out in your logic text. Incidentally, so is the converse, if people don't buy them, they must be bad. At this stage, IMO all we can say is vacuum boots work well for some people and not well for others. Given that we have a lot of variety in our foot shapes, this doesn't exactly qualify as earth shattering news. It's useful to have individuals discuss what problems or successes they had if they specify what kind of foot they have, so others of us can see if our feet might correlate. 

In a few years, of course, we'll have enough data, from enough feet, enough miles, and enough fitters, to actually assess vacuum technology. Of course "we" won't have the means or will to aggregate the data and analyze it. The manufacturers might, but they won't be telling. So at the end of this period, ironically, the final judgement will be a mature market, buzz moved on, other technologies available, and we can say, "Oh, yeah, the vacuum boot. It was a) boots' version of the V8, or b) boots' version of the Wankel." 

Meanwhile, agree with Supergaper - adults should be able to have a heated debate - but as Cirque says, it's gone on and on and... Maybe time to argue about something more meaningful, like why rocker makes you a bad skier and gives you weird breath besides...

I would be amused to see how this conversation would have gone if the Starthaus crew adopted a similar stance to SZK. Who by the way is from a reputable shop in Chamonix, so I doubt he is a hack himself.

I think this thread was doomed from the get go when Nolo annointed it a "Game changer".

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

I note that neither side here seems very good at "moving on," but perhaps for different reasons. The supporters seem unable to to envision that perhaps their own "spot on" fit experiences are not generalizable to the set of all other skiers, so they assume that anyone who disagrees more than once is a hater. On the other hand, SZK and others who are doubters may be determined to get their point acknowledged, even in the face of resistance, by again offering up personal fit experiences - or melting a single pair of boots - as evidence.

I do not see why anyone should trouble to "move on", as it were, until the next round of product is actually released?


 "Moving on" is removing both the carrot and the goad before the donkey actually pulls the cart to an acceptable inn.

 

Quote:

Look, whether you think these boots are the second coming, or yet another example of premature technological ejaculation, your individual personal experience with these boots (and yes, this includes trying to fit a few score people into them for a season) has zero, 0, nada significance toward figuring out whether the technology ulitmately works or not.

 

Sorry, but I disagree here.   If the initial assertion is "The fit cannot fail" then one existence of failed fit is sufficient proof to void the assertion.     We do not need  a giant statistical sample of TITANICs either.


Quote:

 That idea - that if people buy them, they must be good - is an ad populum fallacy; go check it out in your logic text. Incidentally, so is the converse, if people don't buy them, they must be bad. At this stage, IMO all we can say is vacuum boots work well for some people and not well for others. Given that we have a lot of variety in our foot shapes, this doesn't exactly qualify as earth shattering news. It's useful to have individuals discuss what problems or successes they had if they specify what kind of foot they have, so others of us can see if our feet might correlate. 

 

 

None of ^this strikes me as being particularly different  from any other boot.     If we accept that premise, then _Fischer's_own_marketing rhetoric_  has compounded the problem by pulling customers out of the "Trust thy bootfitter" mentality.


Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

It's useful to have individuals discuss what problems or successes they had if they specify what kind of foot they have, so others of us can see if our feet might correlate. 

Give everyone a practical basis and a direct-to-them concern, just like we would with Luria's untutored Uzbeks?     That's been the rationale of reviews for decades now.   

The problem?    If you can't trust self-assessment of data point significance (as you point out above), can you trust  self-assessment of where in the forest any given reviewer's tree is?

Took 37 pages, but it appears this topic is now officially a train wreck.  Moving out.......

This thread is no worse than any other gear discussion.  Well ok, it's a cinematic piece in 37 pages with little character development, but other than that it's the usual "it rules"  or "it sucks" arguments with those in the middle.

We could have similar arguments about some specific "traditional" four buckle overlap boots being the cure all for particular people. Some people will find it great, some will hate it, and others will be in a boot a size or two too large and blame the boot.

"Game Changer" should maybe have a question mark after it, but it's definitely a different game that some want to play, some don't, and some think is misrepresented at least.

I doubt that other than Surefoot, who I don't think are selling this boot,  bootfitters are going to completely guarantee your fit satisfaction.  Are they really going to eat the price and all that labor?

It does seem like we can draw a few conclusions.

• The liners  are not very good. That's hardly new territory, but most companies have been getting better, not worse, so this is a step backwards.
• It's not a cure all, nor some sort of digital scan and create a boot that works instantly process.
• The process has to be done well and everything padded for room.
• Molding could improve or worsen stance issues.

So far this thread about a "no brainer" product has almost reinforced the need for quality bootfitters, not the opposite.

Molding in correct stance width introduces a whole new set of issues. In general, I agree with Skiing in Jackson, most people do not ski nearly as wide as they or a lot of bootfitters actually, think. Given all this, the rapid expansion to less skilled shops may just introduce more problems that are bad for the product. There may be a big gap between what the public expects, and what the system can deliver. That depends a lot on how Fischer markets it.

There's sometimes two positions on the same thing. We've got Fischer Vaccums, they've got heels:

"Gisele And Others Are Taking A Career Stand Against Ridiculous Shoes" - Grindstone, Aug 18, 2011, Ruth Graham

Quote:

Meanwhile, this photo of a woman who apparently wants the heels, even for dirt walking.

"Ex-K.G.B. Agent Said to Win South Ossetia Presidency" NY Times, 4/9/12 by Ellen Barry

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/world/europe/ex-kgb-official-said-to-win-south-ossetia-presidency.html?_r=1&ref=world#

Mikhail Mordasov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

An electoral commission member carried a ballot box in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia’s capital, after the fourth round of voting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantunamunch 

The problem?    If you can't trust self-assessment of data point significance (as you point out above), can you trust  self-assessment of where in the forest any given reviewer's tree is?

Very true. And pretty much agree with all you say (here I am, not moving on ). Especially the problem that Fischer's roll out implies that technology - soon to available at the big box store down your street - will free us from needing most human expertise. Just take the seminar on how to fire up the machine, and stand back; another satisfied customer. I'm kinda surprised that the fitters who've gone to the trouble to get the tech and learn its strengths and weaknesses aren't fairly p.o.'ed. 

I'll disagree though, that the initial assertion was ever about "this fit cannot fail." IMO it's been about the nature of acceptable evidence, which your quote here notes. If I don't agree with you, I'll just say that your evidence is irrelevant, or that you're biased. Or I'll ignore you and repeat my stance. Re: any political debate. 

And if this isn't about falsification, then single examples aren't worth much. Except to occupy us as summer looms. There will always be folks who are happy and folks who are not. IMO the real issue is whether the populational incidence of good fit is significantly higher with the vacuum system than without it. I'll stand by my statement that it's too early to say either way. Whether you're a believer having tasted heaven, or a non-believer, destined for a hell of 1965 Langes two sizes too small.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

It does seem like we can draw a few conclusions.

• The liners  are not very good. That's hardly new territory, but most companies have been getting better, not worse, so this is a step backwards.
• It's not a cure all, nor some sort of digital scan and create a boot that works instantly process.
• The process has to be done well and everything padded for room.
• Molding could improve or worsen stance issues.

 

So far this thread about a "no brainer" product has almost reinforced the need for quality bootfitters, not the opposite.

^^^^ This. 

It would seem to this reader that by unsnapping the Legos of this thread and restacking them one can come up with a very decent purpose to not moving on:

Creation of a wish list or criteria list to enable  "populational incidence of good fit  significantly higher with the vacuum system than without it".

For sure ^^^^. But how do we define "good fit?" In the other, less histrionic thread, Skiing in Jackson allows as how he's had to punch, remold, stick in an Intuition, and suffered purple toes without feeling, but it's now the best boot he's ever had. So some of this may be about how much, uh, low tech (also known as serious boot fitting) we're willing to accept as definitional for a good fit. Personally, he seems to have gone through more than I ever did with my Dalbellos that out of the box fit no human foot. But he seems to be speaking about outcome rather than effort to get there. I suspect for most people, there's a limit at which they throw up their hands and it becomes a "bad fit." Otherwise, no boot could ever have a bad fit, because any boot of the correct length can be made to fit well given enough seances with the fitter. No? 

I'll throw this out: A good fit is taken to mean a boot that delivers over 85% of the maximum performance that boot is capable of, without a level of discomfort that distracts from the act of skiing. This fit is achieved within 2 visits to a qualified boot fitter. 

I think the back and forth of this thread has been reasonable until the last few pages.  As most already know, I've been one of the pro-vacuum posters and have, for whatever reason, been frustrated by and responded to posts by SZK.  No more.  I'll follow along this and the other thread, posting when I feel like it but I'm going to avoid engaging in the bickering.

FWIW, way up-thread I posted that anyone who thought this tech would replace a good bootfitter was crazy.  IMO the biggest advantage of this tech, for some people anyway, is to get you to a good fit quicker than traditional boots do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

For sure ^^^^. But how do we define "good fit?" In the other, less histrionic thread, Skiing in Jackson allows as how he's had to punch, remold, stick in an Intuition, and suffered purple toes without feeling, but it's now the best boot he's ever had. So some of this may be about how much, uh, low tech (also known as serious boot fitting) we're willing to accept as definitional for a good fit.

The thing about the other thread that some might have glossed over:

Why aren't the methods for doing so a prime feature of the Fitness forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

For sure ^^^^. But how do we define "good fit?" In the other, less histrionic thread, Skiing in Jackson allows as how he's had to punch, remold, stick in an Intuition, and suffered purple toes without feeling, but it's now the best boot he's ever had. So some of this may be about how much, uh, low tech (also known as serious boot fitting) we're willing to accept as definitional for a good fit.

 

Personally, he seems to have gone through more than I ever did with my Dalbellos that out of the box fit no human foot. But he seems to be speaking about outcome rather than effort to get there. I suspect for most people, there's a limit at which they throw up their hands and it becomes a "bad fit." Otherwise, no boot could ever have a bad fit, because any boot of the correct length can be made to fit well given enough seances with the fitter. No? 

 

I'll throw this out: A good fit is taken to mean a boot that delivers over 85% of the maximum performance that boot is capable of, without a level of discomfort that distracts from the act of skiing. This fit is achieved within 2 visits to a qualified boot fitter. 

 

I don't know about two visits, depends on the amount of time. 

Your point is excellent though, the vast majority are simply not willing to do this, and a less precise fit is called for.  The question seems to be can the Fischer Vacuum fulfill on this two visits promise? From this thread seems somewhat doubtfull given the current liner and process of forming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

I don't know about two visits, depends on the amount of time. 

Your point is excellent though, the vast majority are simply not willing to do this, and a less precise fit is called for.  The question seems to be can the Fischer Vacuum fulfill on this two visits promise? From this thread seems somewhat doubtfull given the current liner and process of forming.

 

We've been using the current range of boots and getting precise comfortable fitting boots within two visits for years, so this is not a new thing and Fischer haven't reinvented the wheel.

It wasn't Skiing in Jackson who had cold numb toes ect...  For the record it was me.  It was more than two visits.  It could have been less, but I didn't want to remold and not have a boot for 24 hrs.  The boot always skied great, once I got used to my altered stance.  It is still tighter in the toe box than I would like, but is acceptable.  My point in the whole story is that I was an early adaptor and didn't get the benefit of the experience that my bootfitters and now myself now have.  When I get the new pair next fall, I expect to be fitting better than I do now when I walk out of the first visit.  I believe that the tech is solid, there was a learning curve and it's not the panacea that the hype would have had you believe nor will it eliminate the need for skilled bootfitters.

My left toe feels almost normal now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

I'll throw this out: A good fit is taken to mean a boot that delivers over 85% of the maximum performance that boot is capable of, without a level of discomfort that distracts from the act of skiing. This fit is achieved within 2 visits to a qualified boot fitter. 

 

 

I think that this thread has overvalued the process of fitting vs. the result.  Fitment occurs early in the life of the boot, and the characteristics of the boot, including fit, play out over the life on the slopes.  I have put in about 120 hours this season just driving to ski.  I have about 5% of that time into boot fitting (my fitter is about 45 minute away), and I started from scratch at the beginning of the season working on an existing boot and finally going to an entirely new setup (Sidas/Conformable) including custom footbed.

If you told me "Here is a boot that is 25% lighter, flex characteristics remain constant across a wide temperature range, it has a relatively warm quality moldable liner with a good lifespan, and by the way, as long as your foot is within a certain range, we can mold the shell to a more precise fit but this is a sophisticated plastic and it may take multiple visits to dial in...AND there is a manufacturer money back guarantee if fitment, air/water seal, or other issues cannot be resolved", then I am fine with 3 or 4 visits if needed.  

It is about setting the expectations at the shop, and discussing recourse if there are issues.  The value points in the statement above are (not necessarily in this order):

• Lighter
• Consistent flex
• Warm (due to liner and fit - no pressure points)
• Performance (due to fit and weight and flex)

The liner and buckles and maybe the overlap seal design are compromising those last two benefits.  They should be upgraded without any increase in MSRP and the 'guaranteed fit' should be 'money back' if the molding compromises the seal, buckles, mounts, or even the liner.  At that point, the price premium is justifiable, even for an intermediate or beginner with serious aspirations, and the fitter has to take this technology to a level of expertise to avoid getting caught in the middle of that money back guarantee or profit draining refitting sessions.

Buying this boot with known issues means the risk is on the buyer's wallet.  I was dead set on getting this boot due to my skinny legs, and it did me a huge favor as I saw a good fitter and ended up with a different product because the vacuum had obvious risks that I wasn't willing to take.

Upgrade the deficient design areas, remove the risks to the buyer for a compromised outcome, and you have addressed much if not all of the 'noise' on this thread.  But that will require both Fischer and fitters to assume more risk, which may in fact change the game that they are willing to play.

I am one of the Beta testers of the 130 white Vacuums who is having issues with the boots. I last relayed MY experience on page 31 of this thread so I won’t go thru all that again.

To add to that I  verified on my last trip to Steamboat that MY toe seal leaks a lot of snow and that probably is the cause of the tops of my toes feeling cold immediately . After that I went back to wearing my Dobies for the rest of the season.

I listed MY “findings” in an email to my boot fitter. He relayed it to the Fischer rep. In a couple weeks he got a reply from the VP of the US distributers.

He acknowledged the problem with the liner being too narrow in the forefoot for some users. He sent a pic. of a prototype liner, see below. He blew off the toe seal issue saying it didn’t leak on his boots after he tightened the buckles! And he said there was nothing wrong with the micro adj. as they had calculated the length of the threads with the steps in the ladder. He did say that my foot may not be a correct match for the boot.

As you can see, a piece of neoprene was added to allow the liner to expand for a wide fore foot (like mine) and elastic is higher up.  However; the liner material looks the same. And in fact he addressed the early packing out problem saying the fix was to re-mold the boots when they did. My guy was not impressed with that solution.

After first contact in Feb. they agreed to replace MY liner with next year’s model.  After verifying the toe leak I told them I would only be happy with next year’s boots, not just liners, if they address the problems I was having.

They agreed to replace them or refund my money.

So, I will try them again next year.  As I said in my previous post, from the forefoot back, the boot was fantastic. The fit was such that they became part of my leg and foot. The response was incredible. If I had not felt they were or could be so much better than another boot I would have returned them long ago.  If they can get all the issues sorted out they will be incredible. Or, another company may have to finish the job. And to those who are also having issues with the boot, contact your store and get something going for next year. From MY experience Fischer will take responsibility and make it right.

Sorry, forgot to include the picture of the prototype liner.

Interesting.  I have a couple questions then:  Can anyone definitely provide the facts about the guarantee?  Is there a guarantee on the Vacs?  If so, what does it cover (or not), and how to take advantage of that?

My bootfitter guarantees the fit of all boots he does for 1 year, and remolding, etc for the Vacs includes that.  So I can go back if I want and get them reheated, molded, etc no problem.  HOWEVER, I fully expect that will not fix my problems of toebox crushing me and cold feet caused by essentially cold boots/crappy liners.  I'm not expecting a full refund, but I am expecting top customer service and premium quality for a boot that costs the better side of a Grand when all is said and done.   And the liner/design is not my bootfitter's fault; it's Fischer's issue.  So I'm not out to blame my bootfitter whatsoever, he's been helpful.  I'm out to try to hold Fischer accountable to good customer service and standing behind their product.

So.......is the liner, etc something that I should expect Fischer to address?  I really don't think I should be shelling out (no pun intended) for Intuitions at my cost when the stock liner was crap to begin with.  I'm hoping next year's liner would help solve my problems because I have to admit I do love the fit of the shell and technology.  I'm just very disappointed in the liner and really have no intention of replacing them fully at my own cost, when that should not be necessary with such a premium priced boot.

Can anyone share any facts, info, experience on this??

The fischer vaccum boots are not great imho option .The 150 pro after fitting did not help improve /change  alignment in anyway .The linners are to thin and wore very quickly.The zeppa board needs to be screwed in as does slide forwards and backwards and can easily snap in the middle..The screws on all fittings need to be re-tighten often.Any fit below pressure set at 300  is a sloppy poor fit.The lateral performance of the boot was poor ,also due to poor alignment set up sole planning would of help correct this .17 degree lean angle to much and bindings needed to be lifted at toe to help for/aft balance.Staff not confident in fitting and process well over 20 mins more like 1hr 20 mins.Burst cool bags ,or wrong size use .Footbeds to stiff  not allowing  ankle to articulate to help tipping of skis.150 flex feels more like a 110 flex.

I don't know specifically what the guarantee is. My shop guarantees the fit of any boot they sell or they will refund or replace the boot. In this case, with my boot, Fischer is guaranteeing the boot. This was done however after we rattled their cage a couple times. They didn't come to the shop with the offer on their own. I would strongly encourage any other owners of the Vacuum boot who have had any issues to contact their shop with the issues in writing and insist that they forward them to their rep or someone higher. It will serve 2 purposes. One, given my experience Fischer will make an effort to correct the problem at no charge. Two, Fischer will have feedback in writing from the folks who were their Beta testers. I would hope that they would take the comments to heart and realize that there are more than a few owners who are having the same issues. They can then correct these issues for next year.  If they don't hear from you, they will assume they got it right and there is no need to change things. After all, they thought they had it right the first time.

I will be picking up my yellow 130 vacuum boots soon with fitting to follow later this summer or early fall. My biggest surprise about this technology is that to mold the plastic, you have to wear the stock liner. I would have expected the ski shop to have neoprene booties for wet suits which do not compress. In my mind you want a plastic shell to be the perfect match for your foot but with a constant gap between the inside of the shell and the surface of your skin. Then when you put on the stock liner after the shells are molded with a wet-suit booty, the stock liner with its softer foam will be compressed evenly and your foot would basically float inside the shell.

I could never get a good ft with my previous 1999 vintage Race Pro 1's. In 2006, I replaced the Rossi liners with Conform'able injected liners. Essentially the injected foam filled the void between my foot and the shell, but around the ankle bone, there was hardly any foam between my skin and the shell so that when I rolled my ankles in a turn I could feel the contact with the hard shell. Bumping the shells (both layers around the ankle) did not help as the plastic quickly returned to its original position.

The only way to solve the problem was for me to cut 2" diameter holes in the bottom shell in the ankle area (see photos). Then the injected foam liner expanded through the hole and I no longer felt any hard contact between my ankle bone and the lower plastic shell. The upper plastic shell (without any hole in it) continued to provide structure.

Coming back to the stock Fischer liners. Unless the foam in the Fischer liner is dense, my feeling is that the heated shell will never be soft enough to mold over the bumpy parts of the feet without the foam being squeezed in an unequal fashion. If the stock liner foam is thin and/or dense enough that this doesn't occur, then maybe the stock liner foam is uncomfortable because it won't compress a reasonable amount when the boot is being worn. In short I want the best of both world's - rigid foam liner for molding and a soft foam liner for skiing.

If my theory holds true, then I may end up molding my new Fischer boots using my old Conform'able injected liners which could give better results compared to putting an injected liner in an unmoldable stock Rossi shell.

Yukk.

I picked up my new Vacuum boots yesterday (to be molded soon). They had been left at another location by the ski shop manager who was away on a project. Once I got them home and looked at the liner I realized that one liner had a top strap while the other was missing it. On both liners there is a provision to add laces but on one liner, the loop is too small to pass a lace through it. A visit to the Fischer site made me realize that the logos on the boot shell and power strap don't  quite match the ones in the latest photos posted on the website making me think that I have received a 2012 version and not a 2013. Also the Fischer website shows features and colors on the liner which don' t match mine, as if to suggest that the liners originally belonged to a different model(s) of ski boot (non Vacuum). And my boot buckles have white trim instead of red. I will check this all out next week when I speak to the ski shop manager.

Update to the previous post.

The shell shown in my photo is for the 2013 season not the 2012 season, and that explains why all the buckles have a white accent instead of red. There is a european catalogue for 2012-2013 models which shows the same logos on both shell and power strap as I have on mine. And the catalogue does not list gel flow pad as being a liner feature. So that explains why my liner is missing the pads and why the velcro around the toe-box is shaped differently from the previous year. So the only disappointment I have so far is the missing top strap on the left liner and the poorly sewn fabric loops (2) for passing the optional laces.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1vv68/FischerCatalogoAlpin/resources/67.htm

Reading this thread from the start back in November of 2011 to its evolution today is fascinating. The most fascinating thing about it to me is that we are all looking for boot Nirvana and everyone thought that this Fischer system would be it. All things to all people all the time. It like the boot fitter that has the best reputation for his/her work...they start getting all the feet that nobody else wants or has a clue how to work with in a ski boot. The vacuum system was supposed to in theory take care of all that. Well, here we are a year later and there are more questions then answers.

The boots continue to evolve (as they should) so they are a moving target along with the feet that they serve. If the system works according to theory having to put a custom liner into a custom shell really shouldn't have to happen. Further all the ball of foot pain isn't always caused by too narrow a boot. It is many times a combination of things, but one thing to never ignore when deciding on a new boot is the boot board itself. That's were it all starts and everything else is built upon. Ignoring your foots natural balance point makes everything else less then perfect window dressing all the way to whatever final alignment or canting you may have. I will continue to follow this thread with interest and humor.

on the nose sir.

In my post number 1104, I show photos indicating two inconsistencies between my left and right liners. Today I visited the distributor after my ski shop made the appointment and I received two replacement liners which had no inconsistencies. It would appear that during the production run for the 2012-2013 liners, a decision was made to drop the top velcro strap on the liner. This strap has anti-slip rubber dimples on the outer surface so as to contact the shell's power strap and prevent it from slipping upward while under tension. It may be that the liner strap was needed in 2011-2012 because the power strap had no anti-slip dimples attached to its inward facing side. But the power strap of the 2012-13 shell definitely has those anti-slip rubber dimples, so Fischer may have decided that keeping the anti-slip strap on the liner was no longer necessary. I have not seen a pair of 2011-12 shells to be able to confirm my theory. On another note, the buckle color and decals on the shells have changed for 2012-13. However within the 2012-13 production run, for the logo near the top of the shell that prints RC4 PRO 130, the "4" on my shell is colored red, but on the two pairs of shells I saw this morning at the distributors, the "4" is a white color - that's the only difference in the cosmetics. I can't explain what that color difference stands for.

I agree with skixtremedude where he states that a custom liner should not be necessary if the Vacuum technology is working perfectly. However a close look at the Conform'able liner shows that the urethane injection can produce a much thicker tongue in the area under the power strap, and that liquid foam solution can follow the minute changes in the surface of the bare foot better than trying to reshape a 2 mm. thick plastic shell under air pressure even when it is highly malleable.

As I stated in my post # 1102, I would love to have a Vacuum shell shaped perfectly to my foot so that if an injected liner was introduced later, the thickness of the urethane foam would end up being consistent everywhere, as opposed to ending up with thin spots where you need them the least, like around the ankle bone. My boot molding will take place in a few weeks and I'll post my comments then. Thanks for reading.

Update to the previous post:

Yes it is now obvious from catalog photos that between 2012 and 2013 production runs, the power strap design changed from one where the closure is by velcro to one which uses a metal clip instead.

While doing so, the anti-slip feature is changed from being an inner, rubber coated strap on the liner to being a wide rubber coated sleeve slipped over the new,narrower, non-velcro power strap.

And the so called Gel Flow Pad that was sewn on the outer surface of the 2012 liner in the ankle area is replaced by a pad of some sort hidden below the surface of the 2013 liner in the same ankle area. I have no idea if the revised pad uses the same ingredients of gel and cork or if just a thick foam rubber pad is now used.

I had my New Fisher Vacuum Trinity 110's molded last week!  My first impression is...WOW!!!!!  They feel incredible on!  The process was a little uncomfortable, but tolerable.  They used 250 pounds of pressure on the left boot, and 300 on the right.  I have a super skinny calf on the right leg and a severe pronation and some calcium deposits on the right foot from crushing my heel many years ago that the fitting process conformed to quite nicely.  I used my Intuition Liners and custom foot beds.  I usually need a 3 degree cant on the big toe side of the right boot, but my boot fitter thinks that the Vacuum process corrected that by at lease 1.5 degrees.  I'm going to wait until I can ski them before we do any plane work to the sole.

Here's a picture of bare feet, and then in the boot.  It's amazing how the boot perfectly matches my leg shafts.  (Sorry for the upside down pictures)  I can't seem to figure out how to flip them!)