or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How much money do you invest in custom boot fitting for a new pair of boots?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How much money do you invest in custom boot fitting for a new pair of boots? - Page 3

Poll Results: How much did you pay beyond the retail boot price for custom fitting with your last pair of boots? Note, baking the liners should be free with purchase right?

 
  • 40% (27)
    $0 I paid nothing, they did bake the liners or I did it myself but no additional custom fitting expense was incurred. Or better yet, full custom fitting, grinding, punches were included in the retail price :-)
  • 7% (5)
    $1 to $50. They made a few tweaks, or a lot of them but the price was mimimal.
  • 7% (5)
    $51 to $100. A fair amount of work done opposed to off the shelf boots.
  • 10% (7)
    $101-$150. Several modifications in the fitting process
  • 28% (19)
    $150+. What can I say, I have expensive dogs :-)
  • 5% (4)
    Flawed pol or none of anyone's business hahhahahaha!
67 Total Votes  
post #61 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post
 

I am a CAD engineer, and the technology exists to create a virtually perfect 3D model of your foot and leg for reasonable $$. The machine will be very expensive, but it will touch your foot with a small ball ended probe and trace the foot. Toes will take some "fudging", but that shouldn't be an issue. I have used the machine to reverse engineer existing parts. The actual question is what do you do with that model??. A boot company is not going to custom mold an individual's boot based on your foot model, the economics of molding don't allow it.

When I was in business school the professors talked about the 00s being the dawn of "flexible manufacturing cell" technology allowing all kinds of custom one off per person products at unbelievably reasonable cost per unit.  They theorized that pharmaceuticals would likely be where this began.  More than fifteen years later and I haven't seen this flexible cell applied large scale in anything except business cards. But, there will be a day when it is feasible for just about everything.

post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post


In today's society, a lot of things are "cost reduced" which has the opposite effect on quality and reliability. This is my soapbox way of saying we are (have) become a throw away society of cheap goods.  End of sermon.

Amen to that.
post #63 of 89

There may be manufacturing changes in the near future that are either revolutionary or evolutionary and that will allow for customization of things like ski boots at relatively low cost.The pace of technology development is fast enough that we probably won't know too far in advance of what these changes are likely to be or when they will occur.

 

One small example of a highly individualized process that is affordable is Ortho-K lenses. They are double reverse-curve highly gas permeable hard contact lenses that are machined to the contours of each individual eye. The procedure uses a light-based mapping process of each individual cornea, with the data from that then used to produce the lens. The special curves allow the lens to "pull" the cornea up where that's needed and "push" it down in other areas. Some slight pressure is needed for the lens to work, so they need to be worn when sleeping. In the morning, the lens is removed and the reshaped cornea now gives the user essentially 20/20 vision, which degrades slowly over 48-72 hours as the cornea returns to its former shape. The recurring cost for this bespoke process is about only $500, and the lenses last about 3 years (note: the upfront measuring process and the first fitting will cost 3x that). Obviously, such a complicated process can be done affordably only when the sophisticated measuring, data gathering and manufacturing systems needed were available at reasonable cost. Perhaps something like the 3-D manufacturing process will evolve to allow ski boots to be custom made the same way the process evolved for Ortho-K contact lenses. Full disclosure: I've used Ortho-K lenses for at least the last ten years but have no stake beyond being a user.

 

As far my own ski boots go, I've had lots of ill-fitting pairs, despite working with reputable ski shops. It's not as if the shops did not put the effort in, it's just that what they did didn't work. That recently changed for me however when I bought a pair of carbon-fiber 3-buckle boots that fit reasonably with minimal fitting work - all done by the shop as part of the purchase. As the season progressed, I needed some shimming and even some work to punch the shell and shape the liner. Again all done gratis by the shop as part of the purchase.

post #64 of 89

5 K sounds unreasonable to me, but I'm not a one percenter.

post #65 of 89
Sorry, long post, couldn't help it, but made the pertinent facts easy to find. The bottom line is that my current boots, which are marvelous, cost about $750 including fitting, and footbeds (a necessity for my old feet) were about $150, so I'm a hair under your four figure boot purchase. This was after a lot of really bad pain and suffering with bad boots and a kinda mean bootfitter, though, the $900+ seemed and still seems well worth it.

Round One:
$600 boots, $200 footbeds, fitting and a purported "fit guarantee" included. Told the bootfitter lots about my skiing, burbled and bubbled (I'd just had a fantastic day in a pounding storm) and said I'd skied for one season and wasn't much good yet but was getting better quickly, that I'm aggressive and like to go fast, and that I dreamed of going off piste and skiing the whole mountain. I had no idea what ski boots were about, just what I was told here and on a women's ski forum: find a good shop with a fit guarantee, tell the bootfitter everything, and put yourself in his hands. He didn't seem very interested in any of it, and after maybe 1/2 hour of checking me out he gave me two boots to demo and said to pick the one that seemed to be uniformly tight all over, which was the Rossi Sensor Electra 90, a cushy comfort boot with fuzz at the top of the cuff and a big forward lean, heat-molded a pre-made insole, and baked the liners without any padding I can remember, although he must have used toe caps because it squished my toes badly. On the snow the boots were pain standing still, pain on the lift, pain relieved by skiing because it's so fun, but pain coming right back as soon as I stopped. I had crushed toes that were simultaneously cold and numb and painful, a wandering wobbling heel, screaming quads and calves, knees well in front of my boots, and spent my days fighting like mad to escape from the back seat. At least I had stronger quads and calves than ever before in my life. redface.gif

Over 1 1/2 seasons I made over a dozen trips to the shop begging for relief for my toes and stability for my heels and asking whether my knees should be so far forward. He'd say he stretched or punched something but I could feel no difference; he put heel lifts in, which made my fore-aft balance so crazy that if I hit uneven snow I thought I'd shoot out of my boots; he took those out and put pads around my heels that just dug into me and made my hamstring ache all the time, even with the boots off; and at that point seemed to run out of ideas and interest. He didn't hide the fact that he was tired of seeing me, and poo-pooed any comments, like my knees being too far forward and heels just not fitting, which might have indicated that the boots weren't right. Other fitters stepped up, probably protecting me from him, and tried the same things which I'd just told them he'd already tried. I felt like a loser, like it must be my fault.

Round Two:
$750 (or so) boots, fitting and one year of tweaks (up to a certain amount of punching or grinding) included, $150-$200 for footbeds, from a guy recommended by a woman on a woman's ski forum who I trusted.

The fitting took an amazing six or seven hours over the course of two days. The first day was what I'd call an extensive interview. He wanted to know what I skied, how I skied, what it felt like, what my boots felt like, and what I wanted to do in the future while he examined my feet and legs and posture and gait. Eventually he put a boot on me, but although the shape seemed right it was too big. It was late in the season so it would take a while to find the right size, but he could get the following year's model in a few days. I was desperate and had been saving my pennies, so I forfeited a few hundred dollars and was back a few days later to stand around for several hours while he worked away. I don't think he did much to the shell, but finishing up the footbed he built out of cork and leather and whatnot (as opposed to the first guy's heat-molded one) took a while, and before molding the liner he carefully and thoughtfully padded the tops of my feet and a few other bumpy bits here and there, and put a lot of stuff on my toes so they would lie flat when I'm in skiing position.

The result was beautiful. The new boots were snug enough that I could only wear nylons for the first few months while still feeling comfortable, and the minute I clicked in I felt balanced and stable and even comfortable. With more upright cuffs and nice stiff resistance from the liner and shell I could stand in line without pain, was naturally balanced over my skis without any particular effort, my toes lay flat, just touching the end of the liner, when I skied, and tilting my ankle tilted my skis without any sideways movement of my heel. There was a slight pinch on the outside of my right foot that never bothered me enough to get it adjusted, and I'm now the person who usually doesn't even unbuckle her boots at lunchtime.

I had no reason to get a boot adjustment (though they did work on my skis a few times) before this April, two years later, when the stock liners rather suddenly got packed out enough that thicker socks didn't help and I could no longer compensate for the lack of control. It may be because I was so low maintenance for two years, but although we didn't finish figuring out whether to replace the liners because he closes for the summer, it's pretty clear that everything's going to be free until I actually buy something that requires him to do work, like new liners or heaters.

Regarding fit guarantees, the term can mean any number of things. Sometimes it's a free return and exchange of boots and free fitting if the boots they recommended and sold you can't be made to work, but sometimes it's letting you come back for as long as you can stand to be unwelcome. I'd rather pay extra to work with someone who doesn't offer a fit guarantee but really cares about my skiing and has the experience and expertise to give me equipment that makes good skiing easier.

Anyways, I eventually went back to the first shop and told the manager what happened, being careful not to whine or appear to be trying make him or the fitter look bad. I'd just read some threads on epicski by people who'd had shops take their boots back and either give them a full refund or new boots when they couldn't be made to work, so considering the fit guarantee I was sure he'd give me at least a considerable refund or store credit for the same amount. What happened was that he was very rude, said nasty things about Earl, predicted that I'd have heel spurs (??) in a few months, and eventually gave me a $100 store credit that I never used because although I still demo at one of their outlets, I didn't want to go into the store and risk running into the jerk.
post #66 of 89

In contrast to most, boots seem to fit me well right off the shelf. I have never felt the need for custom beds or fittings because my feet are always warm and comfortable. And, before you ask, no, there not too big. Of course I may not know what I'm missing but I can't justify spend four figures to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken.

 

The most I have spent after purchase is $20 for off the shelf foot beds.

post #67 of 89

You know, this is a funny kind of thread, an unlikely solution in search of a problem that could be mostly solved much more simply. If companies made boots that were a closer approximation to human feet, instead of to other shoes, most of the people who've posted here would have been happy with the pair they got at the shop. Of course, if the same companies then decided to give customers a more expensive "optional" custom fit approach - this is already happening - that would solve the problem they created, and make them additional $$. ;) My hunch is that's the next step out there, not 3D printers. 

post #68 of 89
post #69 of 89

I will also go with the flawed part.

 

The answers are going to be all over the place. A lot depends on your level, if you need canting or alignment, can you flex the shell on the hill and many other factors.

 

For me, I worked in shop for may years and it is hard to find very knowledgeable boot fitters in the area of alignment. Many years ago I would seek out boot fitters mentioned in ski magazines for canting and alignment. I was always 1 degree inside left and 3 degrees inside right. I also have severe bunions. I taught for many years just teaching never evers. It is amazing to seethe degree of poor boot fitting that is out there not to mention no one including instructors saying anything about alignment.

 

5 years ago my right let was put together after breaking it in 3 places and my right foot was 15 degrees to the right so I had to abduct my binding to accommodate. After taking advise from this forum I found a boot fitter who was able to realign me and set my right binding straight. I paid around $300 including foot beds, canting, milling the shell and punching of my shell. I am now 1 degree inside left and 5 degrees right and ski better then ever.

 

Here is my boot fitting story.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/127545/props-to-the-boot-dr-telluride-bob-gleason-alignment-canting-foot-beds-you-are-the-master

post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

For me, I worked in shop for may years and it is hard to find very knowledgeable boot fitters in the area of alignment. Many years ago I would seek out boot fitters mentioned in ski magazines for canting and alignment. I was always 1 degree inside left and 3 degrees inside right. I also have severe bunions. I taught for many years just teaching never evers. It is amazing to seethe degree of poor boot fitting that is out there not to mention no one including instructors saying anything about alignment.

 

 

Interesting points. We're virtually never symmetrical right to left, either in terms of limb and foot architecture or leg lengths.

 

If we unconsciously learn to adjust our stance to compensate for our skis being a few degrees off flat prior to a turn, everything else gets progressively thrown off and those 3 degrees become several inches of compensatory movement at hip height. Funny thing is that instructors I've had seem to notice canting issues more than fitters. Not sure if that's because canting shows up during dynamic movements, or because of fitters' mantra: "That's mainly an issue for racers," which translates to "you probably aren't good enough to notice, so it's a waste of your money and my time on a Saturday." 

 

Solution IME is to 1) take a lesson, and beforehand tell your instructor you're concerned about cant and angulation; he/she will be able to notice if there's an issue, 2) find fitters who deal with racers on a regular basis and actually buy your boots from them, 3) show up off peak hours - Friday or Saturday 4-8 probably not the best pick.

post #71 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

If we unconsciously learn to adjust our stance to compensate for our skis being a few degrees off flat prior to a turn, everything else gets progressively thrown off and those 3 degrees become several inches of compensatory movement at hip height.

 

I'm from the school of thought that believes that there shouldn't be medical or orthopedic intervention with regard to things that seem like slight physical flaws or variations.  Your brain and body have extremely wonderful adaptive mechanisms.  Many years ago optometrists would strap eye glasses on children at the first hint of less than perfect vision.  The result was that the vision got worse and worse needing stronger and stronger glasses.  Now they wait and let the eyes grow and develop to maturity except when the problems are much more severe. The result is far fewer kids needing glasses when they reach their teens. I follow the same school of thought for ski gear.  Heck, I even ski a pair of skis where the toe pieces are almost 1/8th of an inch off center but the heels are correct.  If I hadn't mounted the bindings myself I'd never have known they are off.  The body works pretty well and at pretty full precision without all these micro adjustments.  I can see why someone skiing at the highest level where 100ths of a second over a two minute course really matter would want their boots/bindings shimmed to be as flat as possible.  Other than obvious physical handicaps I feel boot adjustments beyond making them fit well and feel as comfortable as possible is overkill and might even be hampering the skier reaching their full potential... skiing the best unique technique for their unique physiological and kinesiology.  Adjustments and tweaking beyond that is really overkill IMHO.


Edited by crgildart - 6/8/14 at 4:03pm
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

I'm from the school of thought that believes that there shouldn't be medical or orthopedic intervention with regard to things that seem like slight physical flaws or variations.  Your brain and body have extremely wonderful adaptive mechanisms.  Many years ago optometrists would strap eye glasses on children at the first hint of less than perfect vision.  The result was that the vision got worse and worse needing stronger and stronger glasses.  Now they wait and let the eyes grow and develop to maturity except when the problems are much more severe. The result is far fewer kids needing glasses when they reach their teens. I follow the same school of thought for ski gear.


Mayo Clinic takes a slightly different view on the eyeglasses. 

 

Not sure how much vision issues can be used for orthopedic issues but in knee and hip replacement, we do see uncorrected balance issues causing wear issues on joints as body adjusts also with ligament issues, ACL's etc.

 

Skiing and ski gear creates an unnatural situation and poor fitting can put the body in an unbalanced and potentially harmful position.  Bonespurs on the race kids due to tight boots is a common example.  So a justification for spending $1,200 on good equipment that includes, as boot fitting does, balanced stance, foot support, is certainly better for long term health and reduced likelihood of injury.  With boots lasting from 5-7 years, it is not a big yearly expense for skiers.

post #73 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

 

Skiing and ski gear creates an unnatural situation and poor fitting can put the body in an unbalanced and potentially harmful position.  Bonespurs on the race kids due to tight boots is a common example.  So a justification for spending $1,200 on good equipment that includes, as boot fitting does, balanced stance, foot support, is certainly better for long term health and reduced likelihood of injury.  With boots lasting from 5-7 years, it is not a big yearly expense for skiers.

Nothing against alleviating poor fitting through better fitting.  I'm more opposed to prosthetic intervention where it isn't even remotely necessary to ski really well.  If you're convinced that you need more than that, things like canting and angle adjustments to ski better, have at it.  I'm convinced that most don't and will learn ski fine, even perhaps better able to adjust to changing conditions and gear variations than those that rely on un necessary crutches. 

post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 


Mayo Clinic takes a slightly different view on the eyeglasses. 

 

Not sure how much vision issues can be used for orthopedic issues but in knee and hip replacement, we do see uncorrected balance issues causing wear issues on joints as body adjusts also with ligament issues, ACL's etc.

 

Skiing and ski gear creates an unnatural situation and poor fitting can put the body in an unbalanced and potentially harmful position.  Bonespurs on the race kids due to tight boots is a common example.  So a justification for spending $1,200 on good equipment that includes, as boot fitting does, balanced stance, foot support, is certainly better for long term health and reduced likelihood of injury.  With boots lasting from 5-7 years, it is not a big yearly expense for skiers.


I wear glasses and started in grade 6 because well couldn't see the board and was blind as a bat (it came on suddenly).  Over a period of 9 year the vision progressively worsened to what it is today.

 

Now the only difference is I have lost the focal range that I used to have so the lenses contain progressives. and took several years to stabilize.  Again this is age related.

 

My son at that age started having problems and we waited and it cleared up and went back to normal.

 

Juts luck of the draw.

 

As to crgildart comment, let the initial set up start normal and let the body adjust, your normal and my normal are likely different.  Once it stabilizes, now tweak and make changes and let stabilize.

 

Over the long term you will get better result, though this method does take a lot long.  Its not about being against adaptation but needless adaptation for a quick but un-needed fix.

post #75 of 89
In high school they wanted me to wear corrective shoes. As if a girl in high school will do THAT! Told me if I didn't I wouldn't be able to walk by the time I was forty. I told theyn I'd worry about that when I was forty. Now in my sixties. Can still do the grocery shopping. Got by somehow.
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post
 

I wear glasses and started in grade 6 because well couldn't see the board and was blind as a bat (it came on suddenly).  Over a period of 9 year the vision progressively worsened to what it is today.

 

Sorry to hear your vision got worse.  As the Mayo Clinic references notes, per medical science, nothing to do with the glasses. 

 

As for orthopedic correction, typically better to correct it if possible.

 

With ski boots, going with a good fitting, good orthotics, especially if one has some pre-existing condition, is a good investment in one's health.

post #77 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

Sorry to hear your vision got worse.  As the Mayo Clinic references notes, per medical science, nothing to do with the glasses. 

 

As for orthopedic correction, typically better to correct it if possible.

 

With ski boots, going with a good fitting, good orthotics, especially if one has some pre-existing condition, is a good investment in one's health.


That's great and all but The Mayo Clinic is a world leader in many things.  Ophthalmology isn't one of them.  That said, Ophthalmologists here have a pretty bad rap in general for pushing glasses on very young children that won't need them as their eyes mature but will need them if forced to wear glasses below age 4 or 5.  It's just as bad as dentists drilling and filling kids' teeth when they don't actually need fillings.

 

Quote:
 In August 2006, Decker pleaded guilty in federal court to receiving $50,000 in cash and checks as well as a legislative job for his son, all in exchange for supporting Democrat Jim Black for the Speaker of the House position (although Black is not mentioned by name in Decker's federal plea deal). The bribe was made in the form of an envelope containing $38,000 in blank checks from Black's fellow North Carolina optometrists, plus $12,000 in cash from an undisclosed source. The envelope was transferred to Decker by a Democratic member of the House, at a Salisbury, North Carolina, IHOP restaurant. Black's office has said that at some point in 2002, Decker met Jim Black at the International House of Pancakes in Salisbury to talk.[citation needed] Black maintained that the $50,000 was campaign funding support from the House Leader to a new Democratic Party member.

 

The bribes were to get him to push legislation for state sponsored eye exams for elementary school children here in NC. 

 

We can agree to disagree here but the point remains that nobody's feet or legs are perfect yet millions of people ski just fine with zero cant or angulation adjustments.  Pretty sure these things can be sold to anyone though because, as I say, no human body is perfect.   I'm not anti medical intervention where needed, and I'm definitely not an anti vaxer.  I just think there is such a thing as too much of a good thing here..


Edited by crgildart - 6/8/14 at 4:41pm
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Nothing against alleviating poor fitting through better fitting.  I'm more opposed to prosthetic intervention where it isn't even remotely necessary to ski really well.  If you're convinced that you need more than that, things like canting and angle adjustments to ski better, have at it.  I'm convinced that most don't and will learn ski fine, even perhaps better able to adjust to changing conditions and gear variations than those that rely on un necessary crutches. 

Well, they're your limitations... I certainly wouldn't prescribe them to others (which you're not) For me, it's nice that my knees track correctly over the toe of the boot. It didn't matter all that much when I was telemarking exclusively as I could count the total number of days on piste of really jumbled up crud on one hand in a 70-80 season. In alpine gear though, it was a different matter. Proper alignment helped alleviate knee soreness, allowed be to be stacked correctly, and commensurately, able to ski more efficiently and effectively with fewer calories spent. Honestly, if I skied 10 days a season, I wouldn't bother either.
post #79 of 89
Quite a stretch with the children/glasses bribe thing but whatever. I'm sure you can find irrelevant facts to support whatever conclusion you are advocating.

It all depends on what the skier wants to do. With my leg anatomy and pronation, it would be very difficult to accomplish my skiing goals. As an instructor, I should be able to provide a good visual for others. While I may be able to make some accommodations and did for a long time, it was sure slot easier and much more fun when my boots were done properly.

Same thing with bike fitting. A 100 mile ride is not much fun on an ill fitting bike. I don't see much difference.

I get it. You think boot adjustments are not necessary. That makes it easier for you. But many people on this forum want to expand their skiing skills and to limit yourself because of poorly adjusted boots, seems silly if you are going to spend a lot of time and effort working on your skills.
post #80 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Well, they're your limitations... I certainly wouldn't prescribe them to others (which you're not) For me, it's nice that my knees track correctly over the toe of the boot. It didn't matter all that much when I was telemarking exclusively as I could count the total number of days on piste of really jumbled up crud on one hand in a 70-80 season. In alpine gear though, it was a different matter. Proper alignment helped alleviate knee soreness, allowed be to be stacked correctly, and commensurately, able to ski more efficiently and effectively with fewer calories spent. Honestly, if I skied 10 days a season, I wouldn't bother either.

This is a great post.  It shows evidence of the existence of a documented problem in need of a simple, and proportional remedy.  I'm not saying nobody needs boot adjustments beyond simple fitting.  I'm just saying that there are plenty that are done that are not needed.

post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Nothing against alleviating poor fitting through better fitting.  I'm more opposed to prosthetic intervention where it isn't even remotely necessary to ski really well.  If you're convinced that you need more than that, things like canting and angle adjustments to ski better, have at it.  I'm convinced that most don't and will learn ski fine, even perhaps better able to adjust to changing conditions and gear variations than those that rely on un necessary crutches. 

Well, they're your limitations... I certainly wouldn't prescribe them to others (which you're not) For me, it's nice that my knees track correctly over the toe of the boot. It didn't matter all that much when I was telemarking exclusively as I could count the total number of days on piste of really jumbled up crud on one hand in a 70-80 season. In alpine gear though, it was a different matter. Proper alignment helped alleviate knee soreness, allowed be to be stacked correctly, and commensurately, able to ski more efficiently and effectively with fewer calories spent. Honestly, if I skied 10 days a season, I wouldn't bother either.

Here Here! From a teaching standpoint you can see a lot because you are looking for it. The person,  especially women who ski with their butts out because they cannot flex the boot, or a skier who has to lift up the ski a little to make a turn, hopping the ski or just a constant stutter in the same turn  (these are my words) and you can tell there is a alignment problem. Or the skier who gets aligned and says wow, I could never make that turn in comfort until I was aligned. You are just not going to overcome some of these issues without some correction. When diagnosed and fixed correctly it is more fun for the skier and puts them on a quicker path to learning. 

post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

 fitters' mantra: "That's mainly an issue for racers," which translates to "you probably aren't good enough to notice, so it's a waste of your money and my time on a Saturday." 

 

Yup. Been there, and observed others being there. Your advice to pick an off time is spot on. Make a reservation in advance, even. And when you get there, prepare to stand up for what you want, even if you're not totally sure what it is. :D  Video of your skiing, on an iPad or something, is not a bad idea either.

post #83 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

I paid $1200 for SureFoot and Strolz, $1200 for the whole deal, boot, custom foot beds with heaters and addition of PowerStrap to replace boots velcro strap.  These were both the foam filled liners.  If you had a boot and wanted the liner, beds, heaters probably $600 and something for labor to modify the boot if it needed it.

 

I look for perfect fit and good service more than a bargain in ski boots. They last a long time (seven years on the Surefoot, first season the Strolz) so it's not much over the life cycle of the boot.

Daleboot is the custom manufacturer more people use, and I paid a lot less for mine (the cost of a premium boot...that was it).  The problem is finding a fitting center.  I did the measurements myself by mail, and all that was necessary was a minor  tightening of a heel.  I really like the pop on/off canted soles, since some of my skis are canted between the binding and the ski while others are flat.  The "backward buckles never pop open and the back tension release is great on easy skiing days or for walking.  The only thing that took a couple runs to get used to was the forward flex, which is by cable and not the typical plastic rubbing against plastic.    Daleboot created and still owns a number of patents used in the industry.

 

I don't understand why so many people want to fit a square peg into a round hole.  Seriously.  If you have feet of different sizes, or a narrow heel with fat toes, or wide feet and narrow calves, or lopsided ankles, etc. just go custom and get it right the first time.  It can cost a lot less, too.


Edited by quant2325 - 6/8/14 at 6:14pm
post #84 of 89
Thread Starter 

Daleboots are awesome!  When I win the lottery that would probably be where I'd go until the wider sole comes around.  Winning the lottery would also enable me to have some Apex as well!  But, I'd expect more solid performance and less slop from the Daleboot.

post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

Daleboots are awesome!  When I win the lottery that would probably be where I'd go until the wider sole comes around.  Winning the lottery would also enable me to have some Apex as well!

You jest, but I do not...not at this moment, anyway.  I'd love to try Apex on the snow, but my feet are too narrow for any snowboard type of liner.  Apex is one heck of an idea, though.  Daleboots cost the same as a top of the line boot if paying retail (God forbid).  I see them a lot more in UT than anywhere else.  Duh.  The company is domiciled in SLC.

post #86 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

You jest, but I do not...not at this moment, anyway.  I'd love to try Apex on the snow, but my feet are too narrow for any snowboard type of liner.  Apex is one heck of an idea, though.  Daleboots cost the same as a top of the line boot if paying retail (God forbid).  I see them a lot more in UT than anywhere else.  Duh.  The company is domiciled in SLC.

Actually I'm 100% serious about wanting a pair of Daleboots.  I've wanted a pair since about 1981.  Just never had the opportunity and cash in hand at the same moment.  Apex is something I would love to try but not sold on them just yet.

post #87 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
That's great and all but The Mayo Clinic is a world leader in many things.  Ophthalmology isn't one of them.
 

Mayo Clinic is world leader in medicine and ophthalmology is part of medicine and there is much more to ophthalmology than corrective lenses.  The medical science is clear.  Wearing glasses does not make the eye weaker.

 

In orthopedics, correcting stance issues to achieve balanced, bilateral movement can prevent joint and ligament problems.  Podiatry is also involved as poor fitting can cause nerve damage, tissue, bone and ligament problems in the foot.

post #88 of 89

Hey, I  wasn't complaining about my vision  :cool, just have to wear glasses or corrective lenses is all.  Age now is adding the narrowing of the flexibility of the eye.  Now if there is something to complain about it is how your body betrays you as you age.  Damn aging :nono:.

 

Eye examines at an early age is good as it allows for a base line for later reference.  Our son had a -2 in one eye at the 13 and 14 year old exam (base on my progression I expected it to get worse) so he was expecting glasses at 15.....no such luck back to normal.

 

BTW, one of the better Universities for Ophthalmology is the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

 

As to boots, I'll stick to my earlier statement, correct after it is determined the problem is with the feet and not faulty stance or technique (pre-existing conditions not with standing).  For that a good instructor or coach with boot fitting experience is required to make an on slope determination.  Sizing and accommodation for foot shape can be done in shop without skiing evaluation.  There is another thread that bashed this around for a while with Bud Heishman making this type of comment to which I am in agreement.

post #89 of 89

The bottom line is... As much as it takes.  If your feet aren't happy, nothing is going to work right.  Besides, unless you are a working ski professional (coach, instr, etc etc) a good pair of boots will last a long time.  So figure $500 for the new boots, $100 for the footbeds, $50 for a booster, $100 for work.  $750.  A big hit yes but for a 20 day a year inbounds skier, that prob works  out to a 10 year investment.  $75 year for good performance on happy feet.  Realtively inexpensive per year, about the price of a lift tick.

 

If you ARE a working pro (full or part time), you might get 3-5 years.  Depends. I rotate three pairs of boots depending on training sched and weather conditions.   Between pro-forms and ski swaps, pretty cheap.  My current fav coaching boots are Franken-boots consisting of a technica shell with nordica liners.  Coaching boots have Dr Scholls gel "footbeds."  Believe me pros - these are a lifesaver.      My fav Rec skiing pair is a sweet pair of Salomon 110 flex boots ($25 at a swap - score) and my race boots (no fun for anything but racing) were brand new and $75 at the same swap.  yes they both needed a little work punching out spot where my old foot has developed a weird bump.  Game changer!  Worth every penny of the 4 beers I had to buy for my pal a the shop!

 

Spend the $$.  Make the feet happy. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How much money do you invest in custom boot fitting for a new pair of boots?