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 - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Good Job, Interesting Article
post #32 of 45
Thread Starter 
SSH, i haven't tried on the current models from Head and Dalbello. I have a friend who skis in the Avanti V-Comp (lime green model) and taking a look at his stance it looked to me that boot doesn't have a very upright stance. About HH, what can i say? I will never visit that PMTS forum again. If i should listen to him, the first thing i should do now is throw away my Alu Comps because they are rotary and i should not be able to carve in them. Well, i can, maybe he can't... If i should follow his advice, the only boots i should consider are the Heads and Dalbellos. I think these manufacurers make good boots (we should ask Jeff Bergeron to be sure) but this doesn't mean that these are the only boots we should consider buying. So i don't care what HH thinks is good or bad, it's irrelevant to me.

Atomicman, i am currently skiing in a friendly plug. I do think that my boot has a bit too much forward lean to fell comfortable, but it's not too bad. I would be interested to know the figures for my boots. Maybe someone who knows the figures will share them with me. I would be most interested to compare them to the Diablos.

Lostboy, too bad that ski mags don't to that anymore. I wish i knew the degrees of forward lean and ramp angle of my boots. Maybe a bootfitter could help us here...

Max, i don't know how good those reviews are, but the same reviews can be found on www.bootfitters.com and i must say that the reviews from bootfitters are more comprehensive (at least they have been until this year).

I can't end this without showing just how good S*******g is (if someone had any doubt). I found the Salomon X2 Lab review very interesting: http://www.skiingmag.com/skiing/gear...700295,00.html
(note what they say about the fit)
Well, this is what Jeff Bergeron said: Quote=Jeff Bergeron "Salomon X2- Good boot, but harder to fit. Usually sqeezes the toes withough providing exceptional hold in the heel. Make friends with a boot guy" You can find this in his thread. So, it's not the same thing, isn't it? I wonder who i should believe... still can't decide... maybe someone can help? LOL
post #33 of 45
sywsyw, my XTs have a ramp of 4 degrees (measured). Note, however, that I have 25.5s, and they are actually steeper than longer ones (I suppose we could talk about that, too, if you'd like). Have you pulled the spoiler from them (I assume so). I'm not quite sure how I'd measure forward lean in them... I'll think on that.
post #34 of 45
BTW, my comments about HH are largely because I have a lot of respect for his knowledge about alignment. Of course, Uncle Louie mentioned the rotary boot thing on Monday last, and we were both carving in "rotary boots". So, I take the good and listen to the rest and continue to experiment...
post #35 of 45
Thread Starter 
I am in the 25.5 too. So they should have 4 degrees of ramp. I removed the rear spoiler.
About HH, i simply don't know if what he says is true or false. But when he talks about Tecnicas, i just don't think he's right. Nothing substitutes personal experience. I know that the Alu Comp boot i own is not a perfect boot, but i don't want HH to tell me that i should throw them away b/c they are bad for carving. I don't remember if this is his only problem with these boots, but it is definitely one of them. I just hope that no Tecnica owner especially of the Icon models thinks that the boots are holding him back.
ssh, do you consider your XT's rotary boots? You said that you were carving in rotary boots.
post #36 of 45
Here's a link to a good article on the 2005 boots: http://www.bootfitters.com/boot_reviews_home.htm
post #37 of 45
Originally Posted by sywsyw
ssh, do you consider your XT's rotary boots? You said that you were carving in rotary boots.
As far as I know, HH's is the only definition of "rotary boots". Therefore, if he says that the Technica XTs are "rotary boots", they are. However, the point I was making was that I can arc clean tracks down a complete run top-to-bottom with the only missing track the one that occurs during edge change/transition. Therefore, I am carving in the XTs. If these are rotary boots, then my tracks are proof that one can carve in "rotary boots". Uncle Louie is the one that mentioned to me that I was "carving in rotary boots..." (as was he---in his Icons!).

I don't know for sure the definition of "rotary boot", but I just looked at the inside of the XT shells and I'll note a couple of items:
  1. The lower shell comes way up into the cuff, both front (to within 1" of the top of the cuff) and back (to within .5").
  2. The hinge rivets are directly opposite one another with no offset as far as I can tell using my eyes and fingers (I did not attempt to measure them).
It was my understanding that 2 means that it's not actually a rotary boot, but, as I mentioned, I don't know for sure... If someone has the link to the definition of "rotary boot" and the various "this one is, this one isn't" threads on RealSkiers, let me know. I tried for a while but couldn't find them.
post #38 of 45
Nightcat, that article was the lead-in for the Ski Press article, too... But, you're right... Interesting...
post #39 of 45
Thread Starter 
ssh, i think i found what you were looking for. But you won't find exact definitions of rotary boots, only HH's opinions about rotary boots and about Tecnica in particular. I just had time to browse the threads.

(here you will find HH's comments about the current Tecnicas)

(ah! here you will find info about the XT)

(here HH claims that he tested boots and he even divides the manufacturers in two groups: the ones he likes and the ones he doesn't)

Also from what i read, HH claims that the Atomic Race Tech is almost the same boot as the Dobermann.
post #40 of 45
Apparently, the definitions are in the books, which I do not have and haven't read...
post #41 of 45
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by ssh
Apparently, the definitions are in the books, which I do not have and haven't read...
I think i have found a definition of a rotary boot:
(quote=HH) "Rotary boots are defined not only because of the placement of the rivets. The rivet placement is only one aspect of a boot’s performance that classifies it as rotary. Forward lean and ramp angle are the other components of a rotary boot. In the case of the Tecnica boot, the plastic is also too soft for the amount of forward lean. The medial wall flexes which drops the knee to the inside, without tipping the ski to an edge."
There are three things that form the definition: the placement of the rivets, forward lean and ramp angle. With the rivets the problem is simple:he claims that in a rotary boot, pressing forward adds a turning inward force. About the forward lean and the ramp angle i don't know what to say... after all the "rotary boot" concept is HH's label. I think he is the only one who knows this...
I don't want to continue...

There is something i want to tell you about the lower shell of the XT going up into the cuff. After i bought my boot, i looked for reviews. I have to admit that i bought the boot because it was recommended to me by a good friend toward the end of a trip and i didn't have time to surf the net for reviews and not even opinions from you bears. I know i'll never do that again, but i was lucky. The somewhat higher lower shell was called "monoblock construction" in many of the reviews. So i decided to e-mail a bootfitter and ask him about this construction and the XT. He confirmed my fears, saying that the XT has a monoblock construction and that it is not good for carving. He also said that it is a leg boot compared to the Dobermann which is an ankle boot. I asked him what an ankle boot was and he said that an ankle boot is a hinged boot. I sent him a couple of mails, he responded and the conclusion was that any other boot would have been good, except the XT. Of course he was not selling this boot and he had a plug from almost every other important manufacturer.

Then i started a thread on Epic but i couldn't get a clear answer. I decided to ask Greg Hoffman. He is an great bootfitter and helped me a lot. He said that the XT is a hinged boot and there is nothing to worry about. Greg i want to thank you again for your help, your advice was the best i could get and i decided not to sell my XT. (Yes, i was planning to sell them, so this is where you can end up following bad advice.)

The Tecnica Formula was a monoblock construction and because it was not functional and wasn't winning races, Tecnica decided to change it thus the XT.
post #42 of 45
Steve, one thing to notice about the ankles is that the bony protusions of the ankle are not directly across from each other from a front to back perspective, and they are not the same distance up from the bottom of the foot.

My atomic has the rivets approximately over the bony protusions of the ankle. Inside higher than the outside, and the inside more forward than the outside. This would seems to allow the boot to flex with the leg shaft and not push the leg shaft to one side or the other. A boot that doen't match this location could easily introduce some other forces to the ski couldn't it? Does eveyone else see this?

I think what HH says about forward lean and ramp angle influencing rotary torque is probably in the right direction also, if you accept that the more flexed the hips, knees and ankles are the more that lateral movement (edging moves) are converted into rotary force on the skis. Isn't this why boot manufacturers are making their boots more upright? To enhance and allow more effective lateral edging movement and a more skeletal stance, or the ability to get long in the leg. Later, RicB.
post #43 of 45
I'm surprised that Tecnica's dual-pivot hasn't come up in here, as it allows the flex of the boot to adapt to individuals.

IMO, boots are going to prefer a snow type. Looking back on my season, my Diablos were fun on the hardpack but were awesome in the softer snow. Movements seemed easy, intuitive, I stopped thinking and just ripped. I came off of Lange Banshee's and I'm not sure if the difference was softer forward flex, ramp/lean changes or what.But somethiing worked with my body structure/style.

If I were to ski hardpack exclusively, with some with Slalom skis, I'd get a stouter boot, Comp 120/130 perhaps or try out the Nordica HotRods. Something that could really drive the ski and set a supersolid edge on the ice. The Diablo fires weren't prime for this, but I felt as though it was the softer forward flex and nothing to do with ramp/lean. (although, i would like to ski more boots for a more accurate conclusion)
post #44 of 45

Forward Lean


I have just purchased some Techica ALu comp boots and I found
the forward lean angle too far forward and removed the rear spoiler
which has made a good improvment with respect to my longer skis
and I am infact skiing better than I did in my old Daschtien boots
that had less forward lean. On my shorter skis I found there was
still too much forward lean as I was having the occasional head first
fall where with my longer skis I tend to always fall over the rear of the
ski (less painfull)

What I would like to know is what boots are on sale that have a more
upright lean than the Technica boots. My short skis are far to new to
scrap and when I demoed them I had only my old Dashtien Boots that
had a screw adjustable lean
post #45 of 45
Look at the Head RS or RD series.
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