or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The stance of modern boots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The stance of modern boots

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Over the last couple of days i tried to gather as much info as possible on the stance of modern boots. What i ended up with is, well, interesting. It seems that some manufacturers prefer a different approach than two or three seasons ago. From i could gather, the new approach is targeted at shaped skis. What some manufacturers are claiming is that their new approach makes better use of sidecut and as a result, the average skier should carve better.
This new approach is the increased forward lean and flatter ramp angle of some of today's boots.

One manufacturer using this setup is Tecnica with the Diablo series. Another is Rossignol. Their current top end boot has more forward lean and less ramp angle. I am still not absolutely sure about Atomic but it seems that their Race Tech also has a flatter ramp angle and, from what i know, this boot has more forward lean than most boots.

For me it's clear that some manufacturers are taking this approach of increased forward lean/ flatter ramp angle, but do you guys think this works? I mean is this setup better for carving skis?

I also know that this kind of discussions fail to take into account any variables based on physiology, but i am really curious to know if this approach works for many people or not. It is clear that not all people will benefit from this , but, is this a good direction some manufacturers are going or it's just marketing hype?

ssh, i am curious what is your opinion about this.

Jamie
post #2 of 45
No wonder HH is disgusted with Technica. HH says modern boots should be more upright as there is less up and down and more tipping with modern skis. He claims he has been trying to convince Technica of his beliefs to no avail. (I am not saying Harold is correct here, just noting the completely opposite analysis of what works best with modern skis).

I really am not qualified to comment on the correctness of the more forward lean approach as my physiology requires mucho FL with any ski. What I don't get is the decreased ramp angle with the extra FL, as that will decrease the amount of ankle flexion available. The ankle will already be seriously flexed with that kind of geometry.

The approach I like best is adjustablility. Forward lean can be adjusted with shims behind the cuff or adustable bolts in the upper. There are all kinds of possibilities, but it is easier to increase forward lean in an upright boot than to decrease it in a highly angled boot.

As for ramp angle, Dalbello has made boots with a screw adjustment to raise the heel, which allows on slope experimentation. However, all of these possibilities are lost if the shop/fitter never addresses it with the consumer or the consumer never learns about his/her boots. And there lies the problem.... LewBob
post #3 of 45
LewBob hits the nail on the head regarding having adjustable boots. If you're not sure what works for you then make sure the boots you choose have enough adjustability to get you there. Of course the boot fit is the major factor before these considerations, but I certainly consider those features in my boot selection.

I myself have reduced both forward lean and ramp angle in the past few years in an effort to take advantage of "skeletal stacking" to reduce quad burn and fatigue. All I know is that it's working for me.
post #4 of 45
My previous boot was a head world cup tr. I had to make major modifications t oget the ramp angle down t o3 degrees and worked hard to get the fl around 13 degrees. This year I tried on an Atomic B10 and immediatly felt that ti was flatter ramp angle wise than my modified head boot. I was told by a boot man that the atomic b seires has the flattest ramp angle on the market. It feels and skis this way. I altered the forward lean to get it somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-13 degrees. These two thing coupled wit the 3 degree toe out on atomics gave me the best skiing boot I have found to date. Not sure about the t seires and the ramp angle. From my recollection, it has a little more ramp angle and maybe the same forward lean. Both of these series of atomic boots have a two degree adjustment in their forward lean. From 14 to 16.

I have been told by someone not associated with a boot brand, that has done extensive research in the past, that most people ski best with the forward lean somewhere around 11-12 degrees and the ramp angle around 2.5-3 degrees. He also said that there is not a major difference between people in this area according to his research. This jibes with what HH is saying. What I have felt in my own skiing is that very little changes in ramp angle and forward lean can produce big results.

The othe issue wiht a more upright stance in current boots is the increased lateral range of motion in the hips available to a skier as they lengthen the leg. As the hip/leg joint flex increases the laterla movement increasingly becomes rotary force and we lose the effect of the lateral movment on our edging. Interesting topic. Later, Ricb.
post #5 of 45
I haven't got ant numbers but when I put my Atomics on one foot and my Scarpa Denalis on the other the Atomic has much more ramp. If I ski the Scarpas in a Fritschi binding which has 0 ramp it feels terrible. Adding a 8mm shim under the Fritschi heel produces an instant ahhh, just right feeling
post #6 of 45
Thread Starter 
As Lewbob stated very well, combination of increased forward lean/flatter ramp angle IMHO greatly affects the ankle. The Diablo series have preset angles at the ankle. So many people are saying that for carving skis the up and down movements are toned down, but just look at a WC race (GS is best for this) and you will see that the up and down movements are easy to spot.

Going back to Tecnica now, i have to say that i own two of their models: Icon Alu Comp and XT. I also tried on the Diablo Fire and the Race 130. I have to say i wasn't impressed. The only thing i really liked was the flex of the Race 130. The model i tried on was the 2006 model, but from what i know, the only difference between the 2005 and 2006 model is the stiffer flex resulting from the stiffer plastic being used for next year's model. I could only try the boots on for a few minutes, but the most important thing i noticed was that i was in a flexed position because of the forward lean and reduced ramp angle. Of course i didn't have the time to remove the rear spoiler, but, as Lewbob stated, it's much difficult to reduce the forward lean in a boot with a preset angle at the ankle.

About the adjustability of boots, for most boots the only way to reduce the forward lean is by removing the rear spoiler. The Alu Comps i have have quite a lot of adjustments possible, but i think it's far more important to buy a boot that matches the performance angles needs better. In the Alu Comp, i feel the ramp angle but i also feel that i have some range of motion, most likely because of the ramp angle and also because of the modified the flex (that's another matter).

Thanks for the replies guys. Just keep the info coming (it would be better for all of us to know whether the setup works or not).
post #7 of 45
Interesting that "adjustability" would be important to the user, while simplified "plug boots" are valued by the performance minded and the boot fitters.

My own experience is to care little for the boot, but choose your bootfitter carefully.

If you can.

Sorry that I have nothing of value to say about boot mfg. for this year. I like my boots.

Hey Newfy. Can you recommend the Denali TT's for lift serve everyday use? I have a pair on back order and wonder if I'll be able to switch completely from myt Head WC's.

CalG
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
I have been told by someone not associated with a boot brand, that has done extensive research in the past, that most people ski best with the forward lean somewhere around 11-12 degrees and the ramp angle around 2.5-3 degrees. He also said that there is not a major difference between people in this area according to his research. This jibes with what HH is saying. What I have felt in my own skiing is that very little changes in ramp angle and forward lean can produce big results.
Do you mean that ramp angle that is measured within the boot ONLY or a measure of the combined boot-binding ?
post #9 of 45
Interesting conversation so far.

I prefer a boot that just fits. I have found historically that I don't touch a boot's adjustments once they've been fit. My current boots (Tecnica XT17s) have exactly no adjustments other than the buckles.

That said, all of this goes back to balance: what combination of ramp angle and forward lean puts us in the best balance? I am an engineer, so I approach this analytically. If that's useful, read on. If not, "move along...nothing to see here..."

Forward ramp angle in a ski boot tips the foot forward. If the leg is kept straight, that puts the CoM out in front of the natural balance posture (with the body weight distributed across the arch, slightly forward of the center for an athletic activity). So, there is a complementary forward lean in the boot. This forward lean at best effects a natural knee flex that brings the CoM into the right relationship with the foot and allow the rest of the body to flex naturally and complementarily.

Given that modern skis perform better with the skier balanced in the middle of the ski (as opposed to towards the tips as in the pencil ski days), we want our boots to provide support for our body as it balances comfortably there. As a result, we stand up straighter. This means a flatter ramp and a more gentle forward lean. I believe that this is the combination that you'll find in the Atomic RaceTech. It is not what you find in the current Tecnicas (about which there seems to be some confusion, but I believe that their forward lean is too extreme, and the ramp may be, as well).

RicB and I have had tutelage from the same person for some of this. Those numbers seem good. There is also a factor of foot length to height to CoM for some of us rare birds. In my case, I have short feet for my height (8.5 street shoe for 6' and long legs), so I need less ramp than most (since increased ramp moves my CoM foward of the ball of my feet, getting me toppling forward).

Anyway, back to my initial statement: it's all about balance! At what combination of ramp angle and forward lean are you in natural balance over the arch of your foot in a relatively upright stance?
post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Do you mean that ramp angle that is measured within the boot ONLY or a measure of the combined boot-binding ?
This is a tough one, isn't it? Ultimately, it's the combination. But, as we all know, different bindings present different delta angles, producing different balance. Boots have to be balanced with the understanding of the bindings' contribution to forward delta. In the case of some of us, this varies between skis, exacerbating the problem.

For my part, I wish that the binding manufacturers would put zero delta in the bindings, so a balanced boot would work with every ski.
post #11 of 45
[quote=sywsyw]
Going back to Tecnica now, i have to say that i own two of their models: Icon Alu Comp and XT. I also tried on the Diablo Fire and the Race 130. I have to say i wasn't impressed. The only thing i really liked was the flex of the Race 130. The model i tried on was the 2006 model, but from what i know, the only difference between the 2005 and 2006 model is the stiffer flex resulting from the stiffer plastic being used for next year's model.

sywsyw, Do you know why Tecnica is using stiffer plastic in the 2006 Diablo race pro 130?
post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Do you mean that ramp angle that is measured within the boot ONLY or a measure of the combined boot-binding ?
Ramp angle is the angle of the bottom of the foot to the bottom of the boot. The angle the binding introduces is delta angle. This has a differrent effect than the in the boot angle. Ramp angle effects the ankle flex, and delta angle takes this ankle flex and tilts it all forward.

Atomic have no effective delta angle. I measured my new Neox and I think I found that they were around a shy mm higher in the rear. Look TT's have the most I think. Maybe this si why they are dropping the TT from their lineup.

What also needs to accompany this new upright stance is a boot flex that allows the ankle a little more range of motion than previous boots. I feel this is needed for effective all mountain skiing. Not softer boots nessasarily, but a more progresive flex. I can't speak to any other boot models other than the ones I have skied and modified. Later, RicB.
post #13 of 45
Could this be why the Vist plate used by Rossignol on race stock skis in '01-'02 was raised in the front? I guess boots back then had a steeper ramp angle but Rossi wanted to level it out...
post #14 of 45
Would someone kindly explain the concept of 'abducted at the heel' and why (Atomic for instance) would consider it a good thing?
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
Could this be why the Vist plate used by Rossignol on race stock skis in '01-'02 was raised in the front? I guess boots back then had a steeper ramp angle but Rossi wanted to level it out...
I think it was more that Rossi & Look bindings had as much as 7mm of ramp angle built into them.
post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch
Would someone kindly explain the concept of 'abducted at the heel' and why (Atomic for instance) would consider it a good thing?
My guess is the idea is to expedite good foot mechanics. I think the fore foot of the boot is lowered slightly to the medial side (big toe side) to help this along. What I felt when first skiing the B10, was a quicker and more stable edge. This was before I actually knew how they were built. Now how the low ramp angle and the upright stance contributed to this feeling I will never know. Later, RicB.
post #17 of 45
Thread Starter 
sunmtskier, the Race 130 is going to be the flagship production model for next year. It was the flagship model this year too, but for next year there is going to be another model in the line called 90, in addition to the existion Pro 110. Now comes the interesting part. From what i know, the 110 is going to be stiffer closer to the 2005 Race 130. Of course the 90 will be the softest. Thet also added a new women's boot in the Diablo line, called Attiva.
If you are worried about the stiffness of the 2006 Race 130, i have to tell you that i didn't find the boots stiff at all, the flex and overall stiffness was comparable to the XT-17 i own (although i feel that on the hill the Race 130 is going be a little stiffer than my XT-17). The 2005 model was very soft, even softer than my XT-17. So this was probably another reason for them to use a stiffer plastic.

Just make sure that the performance angles of this boot match you needs. If you like preset angles at the ankle, the 130 is the boot. If not i suggest you look somewhere else. And don't forget about the delta angle of your bindings!
After all, this is what i'm trying to find out, if this setup works for many people and is a good thing.

ssh, very good points but i want to ask you what do you think is confusing about current Tecnicas?
post #18 of 45
SYWSYW, I skied in the Race Pro 130 this year and found it to be a great skiing boot, however it is soft. When I pushed the boot at speeds and in varied terrain, the shell would distort from my instep to my forefoot. This shell distortion was why I was so curious about tecnica stiffening the plastic.

For me: the diablo setup works. I am centered on my foot, and in a very nuetral stance in this boot. I have spent a great deal of time playing with various ramp angles, forward leans, toe lifts and binding deltas.
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
I think it was more that Rossi & Look bindings had as much as 7mm of ramp angle built into them.
Ok that makes sense...now they have that elevated toe contact plate, so I guess that took care of that...
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
ssh, very good points but i want to ask you what do you think is confusing about current Tecnicas?
Early on there were some who said that the ramp was less and others who said it was more. Same with the forward lean. Since I have not been able to try them on or measure them myself, I have no idea which is correct. I just got the "more flat, more lean" from the best authority, but they could still be wrong.

What's your take?
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
sunmtskier, the Race 130 is going to be the flagship production model for next year. It was the flagship model this year too, but for next year there is going to be another model in the line called 90, in addition to the existion Pro 110. Now comes the interesting part. From what i know, the 110 is going to be stiffer closer to the 2005 Race 130. Of course the 90 will be the softest. Thet also added a new women's boot in the Diablo line, called Attiva.
If you are worried about the stiffness of the 2006 Race 130, i have to tell you that i didn't find the boots stiff at all, the flex and overall stiffness was comparable to the XT-17 i own (although i feel that on the hill the Race 130 is going be a little stiffer than my XT-17). The 2005 model was very soft, even softer than my XT-17. So this was probably another reason for them to use a stiffer plastic.

Just make sure that the performance angles of this boot match you needs. If you like preset angles at the ankle, the 130 is the boot. If not i suggest you look somewhere else. And don't forget about the delta angle of your bindings!
After all, this is what i'm trying to find out, if this setup works for many people and is a good thing.

ssh, very good points but i want to ask you what do you think is confusing about current Tecnicas?
I assume you are talking about the retail pro 130 not the plug boot.
post #22 of 45
Thread Starter 
ssh, as nothing substitutes personal experience, i will share my findings with you.as i stated i tried on the Diablo Fire and the Diablo Race 130. The Flame i tried on last year and i wasn't interested in the new setup at that time. So i can't say a lot about that experience because i was interested in fit. But i tried the Race Pro 130 (2006 model) two weeks ago so i basically remember almost everything. IMHO, the Race 130 has a flatter ramp angle than the boots i own, especially compared to the Alu Comp. The difference is clearly visible. But compared to the Race XT-17, the difference was very much less visible. From what i know, the Race XT-17 has less ramp than the other icons.

The forward lean was comparable, and as Jeff Bergeron stated in his thread replying to a member's question, the new boot has more forward lean than the predecessor but IMO the matter is different now because we're basically talking about boots with different ramp angles. The forward lean feels different now in a boot with less ramp. Because of the incerased forward lean/flatter ramp angle setup the boot is lower in the ankle area and as a result there is a preset angle at the ankle. Comparing the XT to the Race 130, the boot you and i have is taller than the Race 130, it has an open ankle compared to the Race 130. Why? because of the slightly increased ramp angle and less forward lean. As a result, the Race XT-17 allows more range of motion at the ankle.

This is my opinion about the differences between the boots, but for everyone who's reading this, don't get me wrong, i think the Race 130 is a great boot which works best for those who like preset angles at the ankle.

Atomicman, yes i was talking about the production model. The boot i am interested in is the plug, H17 (it also comes in a stiffer version called H22).
post #23 of 45
Thanks, Jamie, that was as I thought. I think I'd prefer a slightly flatter ramp than the XT with the same (or slightly less) forward lean for a more naturally upright stance.
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewBob
No wonder HH is disgusted with Technica. HH says modern boots should be more upright as there is less up and down and more tipping with modern skis. He claims he has been trying to convince Technica of his beliefs to no avail. (I am not saying Harold is correct here, just noting the completely opposite analysis of what works best with modern skis).
I own a pair of Tecnica Diablos and I attended one of his camps this year. After my alignment session they told me that they were like "OH NO Tecnicas", but that they were pleasantly surprised w. the Diablo.

Angel
post #25 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
I think I'd prefer a slightly flatter ramp than the XT with the same (or slightly less) forward lean for a more naturally upright stance.
I am looking for a similar setup Steve. Currently on my list is the Rossi plug and the H17. I don't know if the H17 has the same performance angles as the Race 130. I hope it has a slightly more upright stance than the production model. There are no problems with the Rossi plug. It's the sister boot of Lange, so every info about the Lange applies to the Rossi.
There would be another boot to consider, the Race Tech, but there is something about this boot that confuses me. I don't know yet if this boot has a lot of forward lean or not. I stated that this boot has more forward lean than most boots. Even if i didn't try them on, i trust my source, Jeff Bergeron. I still have the e-mail where he clearly said that it has more lean than most boots. But he also said that for a more upright stance, the rear spoiler can be removed. I also remember that he clearly stated in his thread (replying to a member's post) that the XT has a similar setup to the Race Tech and i believe he was talking about the forward lean/ramp angle combination.

Maybe someone who knows or skis in the Race Tech (plug) can help.
post #26 of 45
This is a great thread. Some years ago the ski magazines used to perform their own tests to determine a boot model's flex index and they would publish the stats on forward lean, ramp angle and a few other things including cant shaft adjustments. That information has since been hard to come by. Simularly hard to come by are good discussions on the implications of various setups.
post #27 of 45
Jamie, have you looked at either the Heads or the Dalbellos? Those are some of the boots that HH really likes for the reasons that you're stating.

My sup at Copper skied the Race Tech, but I blew it and didn't check the forward lean. I know that they ramp is flatter.
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
I am looking for a similar setup Steve. Currently on my list is the Rossi plug and the H17. I don't know if the H17 has the same performance angles as the Race 130. I hope it has a slightly more upright stance than the production model. There are no problems with the Rossi plug. It's the sister boot of Lange, so every info about the Lange applies to the Rossi.
There would be another boot to consider, the Race Tech, but there is something about this boot that confuses me. I don't know yet if this boot has a lot of forward lean or not. I stated that this boot has more forward lean than most boots. Even if i didn't try them on, i trust my source, Jeff Bergeron. I still have the e-mail where he clearly said that it has more lean than most boots. But he also said that for a more upright stance, the rear spoiler can be removed. I also remember that he clearly stated in his thread (replying to a member's post) that the XT has a similar setup to the Race Tech and i believe he was talking about the forward lean/ramp angle combination.

Maybe someone who knows or skis in the Race Tech (plug) can help.
The spoiler in the race-Tech is just velcroed on. The amount of ramp angle forward lean is also a function of your lower leg shape and length. Any boot can be straightened up if need be.

Both my boys race in the Race Tech. they have very large lower legs which made it necessary to straighten their boots up considerably so their knees were not pushed too far forward. Our bootfitter accomplished this with no problem. Be prepared though to have a lot of grinding(fit work) done on any of the plugs they are not made very anatomically in the lower shell intentionally. Plenty of room to grind. I believe alsmot all the plugs are 14-16 degrees forward lean! (this figure came from GMOL).
post #29 of 45
Found this image of the '06 RaceTec CS13:
post #30 of 45
http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/m...no1/Prvw41.htm

That may be something worth reading ?
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 › The stance of modern boots