EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ask the Boot Guys › Bud v mosh: alignment method comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bud v mosh: alignment method comparison

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 
I was working alongside CEM at the recent UK ski show & took the opportunity of being measured for new boots & am now looking forward to being squeezed into my new M110's in a couple of weeks.

CEM works closely with Andy McCann who's an alignment specialist who utilises mosh's alignment analysis system. Andy did his alignment analysis on me using mosh's special tilting platform system etc & then told me how I'd need to have my boots set-up, ie no. of degrees of shimming or planing etc.

Andy then took my current boots that were balanced & planed at ESA 06 by Bud Heishman (I was amazed at the difference Bud's work made to my skiing) & measured their set-up using his equipment that is accurate to one tenth of a degree.

Bud's analysis methodology is quite different to Andy/mosh's system so I was really interested in comparing the results - & to be honest I was a little concerned that their conclusions might vary widely.

It turned out that Bud had set my boots up exactly the same as Andy's analysis :
post #2 of 3
Thread Starter 
Thought I'd add a bit of extra info re the two methods:

Andy's & Mosh's approach is to test the skier's 'one-footed balance' on each bare foot (supported by the skier's footbed) & then use a thin internal wedge/shim within the boot, between footboard & the liner.

Bud's method had me tested in my boots & if I remember correctly seemed to concentrate on the relative position of the knees over the feet etc by using a vertical gauge. Test shims were then placed under the boots to verify the findings. Boot soles were then planed accordingly. Bud also adjusted the forward lean & added toe lifts (which meant the boot's toe lugs had to be routed down) after seeing my position when clicked in to my Neox bindings.

When I'm properly fitted by CEM in a few weeks Andy will also do a full alignment job on me, including allowing for the boot's forward lean, it's zappa & the delta angle on my VIST bindings which is greater than that on my old Atomic's.

It will be interesting to see how the two systems compare in use as although both systems 'measure' the same it's possible that their effect on me will be different. However, I doubt that I'll be able to make a proper comparison as I will have changed not only my boot make (Tecnica to Atomic) but my boot size (27 to 26.5), my boot flex (gone stiffer), my liner (from stock to zipfit), my bindings (Neox to VIST) & my skis (Atomic to High Society).
post #3 of 3
Any similarity in the measurements from the two different methods is totally coincidental as they are looking at two totally different things. Please do not confuse the two as interchangable or synonymous because they are not.

There has been enought written here on epic about the two concepts so I will not belabor the details.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ask the Boot Guys
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ask the Boot Guys › Bud v mosh: alignment method comparison